PDA

View Full Version : 5e Basic Discussion



Pages : [1] 2 3

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-03, 08:58 AM
Soooo yeah have WotC even announced where they will be allowing people to download basic 5e yet? I'm guessing dndclassics.com but I'm not for sure I saw anything legit and not just random people saying random things.

Callin
2014-07-03, 09:00 AM
Been checking all morning. Cant seem to find it

edit-

Itís hard to believe that weíre on the eve of the release of the first D&D fifth edition product. The Starter Set will be available at Wizards Play Network stores this week, starting on July 3. That day will also see the release of the basic rules for D&D on the Dungeons & Dragons web site.

That makes it sound like it should be released today. So I am really hoping for it.

obryn
2014-07-03, 09:04 AM
The theory today is "noon EST or whenever the WotC servers can scrape themselves off the floor."

3mb, 100+pg pdf download, so don't expect a ton of art.

Callin
2014-07-03, 09:05 AM
Yea I was not going to start worrying until noonish. So that takes away a small bit of worry so to say.

Then once I get ahold of some rules I can get in on these debates going on. Reading everything yall have written has actually gotten me a tad excited about 5th lol.

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 09:42 AM
Mike Mearls said that @Wizards_DnD would tweet when it's officially up. I've been refreshing the page every minute for like two hours now. So excited.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-03, 09:55 AM
Lol, they're going to get slashdotted so hard...

Felhammer
2014-07-03, 10:21 AM
It will probably be posted shortly after the Renton offices open at 9 AM.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-03, 10:28 AM
It will probably be posted shortly after the Renton offices open at 9 AM.

I figured the when would be later during the day due to their location (opposite end of the country for me) but the where is what bugs me.

Shouldn't they have already said what site will allow you to download it?

Doug Lampert
2014-07-03, 10:35 AM
I figured the when would be later during the day due to their location (opposite end of the country for me) but the where is what bugs me.

Shouldn't they have already said what site will allow you to download it?

Why? So their servers can crash under what looks like a distributed DNS attack from all the people TRYING to download prior to the later crash from all the people actually downloading?

At least this way they get the product on the server prior to the crash.

Yora
2014-07-03, 10:35 AM
It will probably be posted shortly after the Renton offices open at 9 AM.

Nah. At 9 the person responsible for it will sit down at his desk, check his emails, do some other stuff, talk to coworkers, and if can make it will upload the file at some point before lunch break. Then at some point in the afternoon, the manager for the website will start creating a new download page and link it to the home page and menus.:smallamused:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-03, 10:45 AM
Why? So their servers can crash under what looks like a distributed DNS attack from all the people TRYING to download prior to the later crash from all the people actually downloading?

At least this way they get the product on the server prior to the crash.

They have a few options really. One of which can be...

Send it over to dndclassics.com, another site (who knows who they are working with), and host it themselves. This way all three or more sites should be able to handle the traffic together.

They probably won't so this and then pretend they didn't know that the servers will crash...

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 10:50 AM
I've seen dndclassics.com mentioned a couple times, but I would be shocked if that's the route they took. It is, after all, for re-releasing "classic" modules and such, not just any old PDF that Wizards wants to host. They'll prolly just post it in an article on their website.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-03, 11:10 AM
The theory today is "noon EST or whenever the WotC servers can scrape themselves off the floor."

3mb, 100+pg pdf download, so don't expect a ton of art.

In addition, don't forget that what's being released today is not the complete version of "Basic D&D". Mearls has said they will be adding to the Basic document from now until November as each of the new core books is released.

Person_Man
2014-07-03, 11:15 AM
Also, when you Google "D&D Next" or various similar iterations the first result goes to the D&D Next forum, which is a dead link because they changed the forum name and url yesterday. So people attempting to find it will often just end up at a dead end.

Yora
2014-07-03, 11:18 AM
Well, it's not called D&D Next. The correct search term would be "Dungeons & Dragons". Good luck with that.

pwykersotz
2014-07-03, 11:38 AM
Also, when you Google "D&D Next" or various similar iterations the first result goes to the D&D Next forum, which is a dead link because they changed the forum name and url yesterday. So people attempting to find it will often just end up at a dead end.

Wow, yeah, I had to actually go to wizards.com and drill down through the links to find the new forum. Bizarre.

Incidentally: http://community.wizards.com/forums/132291

obryn
2014-07-03, 11:44 AM
Speaking of getting slashdotted, looks like enworld is getting slammed right now.

Yora
2014-07-03, 11:48 AM
The forum is labled 5th Edition. Interesting. And completely sensible.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-03, 11:52 AM
I've seen dndclassics.com mentioned a couple times, but I would be shocked if that's the route they took. It is, after all, for re-releasing "classic" modules and such, not just any old PDF that Wizards wants to host. They'll prolly just post it in an article on their website.

That's where they sold their D&D Next/5e stuff...

http://www.dndclassics.com/browse.php?filters=0_0_45190

Callin
2014-07-03, 11:53 AM
Main Website

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 11:56 AM
That's where they sold their D&D Next/5e stuff...

http://www.dndclassics.com/browse.php?filters=0_0_45190

Fair enough, I stand corrected. There's a chance of it, then.

Lord of Shadows
2014-07-03, 11:57 AM
It's out...

D&D Next Basic Rules Download Page (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/basicrules)

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 11:59 AM
It's out...

D&D Next Bsic Rules (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/basicrules)

Huzzah! And the internet suddenly goes silent as everyone begins reading.

Person_Man
2014-07-03, 12:06 PM
It's out...

D&D Next Basic Rules (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/basicrules)

Aaaand I'm blocked at work. Bullocks. Someone let me know if it gets mirrored or posted somewhere else.

Yora
2014-07-03, 12:06 PM
Wow. I just clicked the link, pressed the button, and I had the file.

Amazing how far technology has come.

Lord of Shadows
2014-07-03, 12:11 PM
Aaaand I'm blocked at work. Bullocks. Someone let me know if it gets mirrored or posted somewhere else.

How about a link direct to the PDF? Maybe you could FTP it...

D&D Next Basic Rules PDF (http://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/DnDBasicRules.pdf)

Felhammer
2014-07-03, 12:14 PM
So exciting!!!!!

obryn
2014-07-03, 12:21 PM
Welp, they didn't fix the skill/check DCs.

Callin
2014-07-03, 12:24 PM
Gotta say I am impressed so far

obryn
2014-07-03, 12:31 PM
Gotta say I am impressed so far
I dunno. I was trying to keep my expectations low, and this has failed to meet them.

For example, Indomitable has been nerfed hard.

Callin
2014-07-03, 12:44 PM
From someone who did not see any Playtest Material so this is their first look at 5th. I am impressed with Direction so far. I read all the Races and Classes and did a quick look through the rest and I like what I see so far. Just printed out some Character Sheets and its time to build and do some tossing of the dice to see how it works out.

Merlin the Tuna
2014-07-03, 12:45 PM
Oh god they actually stopped to highlight Drizzt in the description for elves. What is this I don't even

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-03, 01:14 PM
Holy damnit christmas some of the spell damages will be fun to put in play...

Inflict Wounds??? Must...Resist... Making... Damnit.. I'm going to make bad touch cleric now...

3d10 damage is nothing to laugh at even if it is a few times a day.

Felhammer
2014-07-03, 01:18 PM
Overcharge from the Evocation School was changed from 8th level to 14th.

I like how Knocking a Creature out is explicit in this edition and really simple to understand (you get someone to 0 HP with a melee attack, you can choose to knock them out or kill them).


I like how deities ignore anti-magic fields.

All of the classes start out with similar amounts of gold (either 4 or 5 d4 x10).

I love the description of what you can do with a gold coin "you can buy a quiver, 50 feet of rope or a goat." A GOAT! Awesome!

I like how bulkier armor just gives you disadvantage on Stealth checks. So simple. I padded armor really bulky enough to give you disadvantage on stealth checks compared to leather?

I like how the weapons are just organized by whether they are melee or ranged. Very sleek.

I love how there are packs of per-assembled goods you can buy. That is always useful.

Nets seem like they would be good to have just for the ability to stop iterative attacks alone.

Acid does 2d6 damage. That is solid.

A quiver can only hold 20 arrows. Interesting. I am now imagining archers with two quivers on their backs and two strong at their hip.

I like how you have to have a specific proficiency with each game in a gaming kit. Its like real life! You can be really good at poker but suck at Chess.

So you need a Thieves' Kit to gain your proficiency bonus on ability checks made to disarm traps.

Mastiffs can carry 195 pounds? Totally buying a Mastiff over some lame hireling.

The jump from wealthy to aristocratic in the expenses category is marked.

So if you want a 1st or 2nd level spell cast for you, you just need to go to a town. You want anything higher and you need to get your booty to a city and do the guy a favor! I like that the option is explicit but it leaves it up to the DM to figure out the details.

Why would some one carry around a mummified goblin hand? Ewwww!!!!

The DC for ability checks looks the same.

Training is a nice way to flesh your character out. After 250 days you get a new language or proficiency. Very nice.

I adore the personal Characteristics, this is something D&D has need for a long time.

Humans seem ho-hum but that's ok. Many people will still play them just to get that +1 to all their stats.

So we do 4d6b3 or go with the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) for ability generation. That's simple. A human with the elite array has a nice stat block.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-03, 01:20 PM
Overcharge from the Evocation School was changed from 8th level to 14th.

I like how Knocking a Creature out is explicit in this edition and really simple to understand (you get someone to 0 HP with a melee attack, you can choose to knock them out or kill them).


I like how deities ignore anti-magic fields.

All of the classes start out with similar amounts of gold (either 4 or 5 d4 x10).

I love the description of what you can do with a gold coin "you can buy a quiver, 50 feet of rope or a goat." A GOAT! Awesome!

I like how bulkier armor just gives you disadvantage on Stealth checks. So simple. I padded armor really bulky enough to give you disadvantage on stealth checks compared to leather?

I like how the weapons are just organized by whether they are melee or ranged. Very sleek.

I love how there are packs of per-assembled goods you can buy. That is always useful.

Nets seem like they would be good to have just for the ability to stop iterative attacks alone.

Acid does 2d6 damage. That is solid.

A quiver can only hold 20 arrows. Interesting. I am now imagining archers with two quivers on their backs and two strong at their hip.

I like how you have to have a specific proficiency with each game in a gaming kit. Its like real life! You can be really good at poker but suck at Chess.

So you need a Thieves' Kit to gain your proficiency bonus on ability checks made to disarm traps.

Mastiffs can carry 195 pounds? Totally buying a Mastiff over some lame hireling.

The jump from wealthy to aristocratic in the expenses category is marked.

So if you want a 1st or 2nd level spell cast for you, you just need to go to a town. You want anything higher and you need to get your booty to a city and do the guy a favor! I like that the option is explicit but it leaves it up to the DM to figure out the details.

Why would some one carry around a mummified goblin hand? Ewwww!!!!

The DC for ability checks looks the same.

Training is a nice way to flesh your character out. After 250 days you get a new language or proficiency. Very nice.

I adore the personal Characteristics, this is something D&D has need for a long time.

Humans seem ho-hum but that's ok. Many people will still play them just to get that +1 to all their stats.

So we do 4d6b3 or go with the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) for ability generation. That's simple. A human with the elite array has a nice stat block.


Healing seems to have been moved to Evocation, should have been necromancy but I'll take Evocation over conjuration.

:D

Mage Armor is a spell with the range of Touch. I like...

obryn
2014-07-03, 01:21 PM
The increase in spell damage is actually a good thing. It means evocation's not useless, for once. At least, I think so.

The only bit I can't nail down is how much Concentration will throttle caster supremacy.

Oh, and Otto's Irresistible Dance = Most powerful spell.

Callin
2014-07-03, 01:34 PM
Need to see what the PHB says about proficiencies when you multiclass because so far you just need Prof to cast spells in Armor. Mountain Dwarf starts out casting in Light or Medium Armor if he wishes (might not be optimal but still) or take a level of Fighter and cast in Plate....

obryn
2014-07-03, 01:36 PM
Need to see what the PHB says about proficiencies when you multiclass because so far you just need Prof to cast spells in Armor. Mountain Dwarf starts out casting in Light or Medium Armor if he wishes (might not be optimal but still) or take a level of Fighter and cast in Plate....
There are no restrictions.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-03, 01:37 PM
The increase in spell damage is actually a good thing. It means evocation's not useless, for once. At least, I think so.

The only bit I can't nail down is how much Concentration will throttle caster supremacy.

Oh, and Otto's Irresistible Dance = Most powerful spell.

Yeah, I'm just not sure if the bump may be to much you know. Won't know till game day I guess :p.

I don't hate it but just apprehensive, it must be the 3.5 layout style that makes me feel this way haha.

Callin
2014-07-03, 01:56 PM
Also.. YAY to Wizard Cantrips not sucking!!

obryn
2014-07-03, 02:01 PM
Okay, so the PDF was released and discussion about it is kind of scattered all over the place, so I thought I'd try to make a new thread to rope it all in.

After reading it, what stands out for you? Is it better than you expected? Worse?

Chaosvii7
2014-07-03, 02:04 PM
So we do 4d6b3 or go with the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) for ability generation. That's simple. A human with the elite array has a nice stat block.

Point Buy is in the rules, it's not only hidden at the bottom of the page as an optional rule, but the chart is two pages apart for explainable reason(The optional rule is on page 7; The chart, page 9.)

----
Now for my opinions on the rules!

Not liking the new crit rules. Talked it out with a friend of mine, and we like max damage on the attack with bonus damage still being rolled. I think it's a pretty unanimous houserule.

I personally am strongly considering giving the Rogue 8d6 Sneak Attack and giving it Extra Attack at level 8 and nixing that Ability Score advancement. It just doesn't feel right for a Rogue - who is a combat specialist in his own right - to not be able to pull at least a 1-2 punch combo on somebody. I'm considering giving Clerics one too, but I don't think they need it(Still upset that dead levels have found their way into Next, but it's fair that the two non-spellcasters still get something for every level at least.)

Lastly; What are your opinions on any interactions between Two-Weapon Fighting and extra attacks? The rules say that when you take the Attack action, you gain compressed Attack actions, and for every Attack action you get you get a bonus action for Two-Weapon Fighting. So a level 20 Fighter could hit 8 times in a row? I'm not too worried about that, I just want to know if that's what people are taking away from it.

obryn
2014-07-03, 02:04 PM
Replying to myself...

It did very, very little to allay my concerns about the edition, and actually made me more skeptical about it in general. Stuff I think I like:

* Evocation is possibly okay now, because spell damage was upped.
* Concentration may be a pretty good limiter; I'll need to see it in play.
* The races all look fine. I like 'em for what it's worth.

Things I think I don't think I like:
* I think they may have overcompensated for Evocation with abilities like Overchannel. At 10th level, the Wizard is doing more average damage with cantrips than a Fighter with 2 attacks.
* The saving throw discrepancy and widening gap are a definite concern
* The Reaction is still being leveraged too much, and Goblin Conga Lines still work.

Callin
2014-07-03, 02:05 PM
Like I said for me its better than expected. I do have a question about two weapon fighting (like how many extra attacks you gain) but all in all its pretty straight forward and Simple with a underlayer of complexity that system mastery shall show.

Reminds me of 2nd-4th and I am a tad giddy about that.

obryn
2014-07-03, 02:05 PM
It may not be needed, but I made a more clearly-titled Discussion thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?359953-The-Basic-PDF) now that it's out.

Callin
2014-07-03, 02:08 PM
Point Buy is in the rules, it's not only hidden at the bottom of the page as an optional rule, but the chart is two pages apart for explainable reason(The optional rule is on page 7; The chart, page 9.)

----
Now for my opinions on the rules!

Not liking the new crit rules. Talked it out with a friend of mine, and we like max damage on the attack with bonus damage still being rolled. I think it's a pretty unanimous houserule.

I personally am strongly considering giving the Rogue 8d6 Sneak Attack and giving it Extra Attack at level 8 and nixing that Ability Score advancement. It just doesn't feel right for a Rogue - who is a combat specialist in his own right - to not be able to pull at least a 1-2 punch combo on somebody. I'm considering giving Clerics one too, but I don't think they need it(Still upset that dead levels have found their way into Next, but it's fair that the two non-spellcasters still get something for every level at least.)

Lastly; What are your opinions on any interactions between Two-Weapon Fighting and extra attacks? The rules say that when you take the Attack action, you gain compressed Attack actions, and for every Attack action you get you get a bonus action for Two-Weapon Fighting. So a level 20 Fighter could hit 8 times in a row? I'm not too worried about that, I just want to know if that's what people are taking away from it.

See I saw that as well but then that means that with Haste on him he gets 16 attacks from his 2 Attack Actions. HOLY BLENDER BATMAN (my exact words when I saw that)

Chaosvii7
2014-07-03, 02:13 PM
See I saw that as well but then that means that with Haste on him he gets 16 attacks from his 2 Attack Actions. HOLY BLENDER BATMAN (my exact words when I saw that)

Had to double check that; Haste's bonus attack action specifies that you can only make one additional weapon attack with that bonus action.

obryn
2014-07-03, 02:14 PM
Like I said for me its better than expected. I do have a question about two weapon fighting (like how many extra attacks you gain) but all in all its pretty straight forward and Simple with a underlayer of complexity that system mastery shall show.

Reminds me of 2nd-4th and I am a tad giddy about that.
TWF has been nerfed pretty hard, but it was arguably too strong before.

Your second weapon attack is now a Bonus Action, which makes a huge difference.

Callin
2014-07-03, 02:15 PM
Totally missed that :) my bad. So that alleviates that fear

Chaosvii7
2014-07-03, 02:25 PM
* The saving throw discrepancy and widening gap are a definite concern

I actually saw you talking about that earlier, and I honestly believe that the Inspiration system was meant to be a patch for that pretty big hole. Which is a shame, because Inspiration is a pretty useful idea in theory and this means that there's a lot of less attractive options when saving throws make or break fights(two words, rhymes with 'shmap shmoptions'.) I guess it isn't so bad if your DM is generous for playing true to your character, but it's really a shame that they didn't consider alternative ways to fix it.

...Speaking of, if you brainstorm something feel free to share it. :smallbiggrin:

Chaosvii7
2014-07-03, 02:27 PM
Totally missed that :) my bad. So that alleviates that fear

Double checked the definition of a Bonus action at the suggestion of Obryn. A character only gets one bonus action besides the ones from their abilities(such as the Rogue's Cunning Action), which means that in a full attack, you can only hit with your offhand weapon once at all. So a Hasted Level 20 Fighter with two weapons is only going to be able to hit 6 times - still a big number when everything else in Basic D&D only gets one-two attacks before being hasted, but it's not as huge a disparity in power as it would have been if he were able to swing his offhand every other swing.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-03, 02:31 PM
Had to double check that; Haste's bonus attack action specifies that you can only make one additional weapon attack with that bonus action.

Pshaw, its way more fun the other way :smallbiggrin:

Dublock
2014-07-03, 02:43 PM
Anyone know the link to find the character sheets? The web page for Character sheets on WoTC hasn't been updated for 5e/Next yet.

Edit: The Basic PDF 107-109 has it in it.

obryn
2014-07-03, 02:48 PM
I'm actually a big fan of the section on choosing your character's Sex.

e: Just to be clear, there's no snark here. A sincere "well done," WotC.

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 02:53 PM
Just read through the whole thing except the individual spell descriptions, taking notes as I went. I'm sure a lot of these have been addressed elsewhere, but here's some of my observations, somewhat poorly organized:

Racial stat bonuses up across the board, which I like. But the Dwarven subraces had their stats swapped, which makes mountain dwarves armor proficiency nearly useless, as most Str based classes will already have those. Also, the Human alternate option is really awesome. A Feat at first level? As well as picking which two stats I'm getting a +1 to? That makes a much wider variety of builds playable from level 1.

Classes are now standardized at 2 saving proficiencies and 2 skills, except rogue of course, with backgrounds reduced to two skills to compensate.
Cantrips known go up by level. Also spells prepared scale with you casting stat, which makes Wis-dump Clerics harder to pull off. Destroy Undead caps off at CR4 undead, which is disappointing. Divine Intervention auto-wins everything at 20, which makes me think that level 20 is not intended to be actually played. Blessed Healer reminds me of my favorite part of 4e healers- self healing when you heal others is fun.
Archery Style is up to a +2, which I like. This really makes archery the accuracy style. New Dueling Style supports sword and board types, which is good. Great Weapon Fighting revamp is interesting. Higher damage, especially with Greatsword/Maul, and the controversial DOAM is gone. Stacks well with new crit rules. Indomitable got nerfed, as it now has a recharge. This makes me sad. Remarkable Athlete is a fun fiddly little ability, which is in line with the Champion Archetype as a whole. I can definitely see myself playing one.
I didn't pay too much attention to the Rogue in the playtest beyond the first couple levels, but a lot of stuff feels like it's changed. Expertise starts off slow and scales, and lets you do Thieves' tools. Kinda shoehorns you into the stereotypical lock-picker/trap-disabler, which I'm not a fan of. But I still like expertise in general, so if you just don't pick that option you can still have some build variety. But sneak attack now only works with ranged and finesse weapons! This makes Str rogues a much less viable option. Cunning action no longer allows item use, which is a bit of a nerf, but the potential for abuse was pretty high there imo. (Yes, I know casters are worse, but within the realm of mundanes it's got potential from abuse.
For Wizard... most of my comments for Cleric applies. I don't play evokers, so I didn't really care about the school features in the playtest.

Stat requirements for multiclassing made it through, which I'm not a fan of. But not all proficiencies auto-granted, which helps with multiclassing abuse, so that's good.

Str requirements for heavy armors:smallmad: But Heavy armor was clarified to not penalize you for having a negative Dex mod (a debate I saw on the WoTC boards). Certain armor types have disappeared, making Heavy armor cap 1 point higher than Light and Med, unlike the playtest where Heavy and Light were both one point higher than Med. Were light crossbows a d8 in playtest? Makes it much more attractive to rogues.

Suggested Personality traits in the backgrounds will be useful for new players. Crafting rules take FOREVER. You don't even get a skill roll to speed things up. As a smith this makes me unhappy. Training rules. Interesting. Also takes a long time, but the fact that they're included at all is... interesting. Bonus actions capped a 1/round. Good. That limits potential abuse. 1 free action/round to use on object. Moving between attacks is still a thing. Good. Standing up costs half your speed. Very interesting, and makes Prone a less-powerful means of crowd control. Another creature's space is difficult terrain in addition to potentially provoking an AO. Makes sense, but reduces mobility. Size caps at gargantuan and bottoms out at Tiny. Farewell Colossal and Fine.

Readying a spell requires Concentration. I think this one's pretty big, as it limits casters in a tactical way. Not enough to bring them down to the level of mundanes, but every little bit of abuse prevention helps. One spell per round unless one of them is a cantrip, which is also good, and Concentration roll required if you take damage. TWF requires a bonus action. This could end up being huge, as it will severely limit any build that has other uses for a bonus action. Grappling and Shoving require only one swing of an attack action if you have multiple attacks. Shoving covers both bull rush and trip. These are both good, as they make a fighter feel like he can do this stuff even if he doesn't specialize in them. Crits double roll ALL DICE, not just damage dice. Makes Rogue crits much more deadly than other classes (and even Clerics, amusingly enough, get more out of that than, say, most Fighter).

Resistance and Vulnerability are applied last. I'm glad they specified that. Damage at 0 rules- you lose death saving throws. Clean mechanic. Only melee attacks can knock unconscious intentionally, but can choose to do so after damage is rolled. Temp HP resets at a long rest and doesn't stack. Mount rules much streamlined compared to 3.5, which is nice. Underwater combat rules are basically disadvantage on weapon rolls with a list of exceptions. Good thing it doesn't come up all that often.

Morty
2014-07-03, 03:02 PM
They're still sticking with the old, obsolete weapon table. Near the end of the playtest, I hoped they'd do something about it.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-03, 03:08 PM
Just read through the whole thing except the individual spell descriptions, taking notes as I went. I'm sure a lot of these have been addressed elsewhere, but here's some of my observations, somewhat poorly organized:

Racial stat bonuses up across the board, which I like. But the Dwarven subraces had their stats swapped, which makes mountain dwarves armor proficiency nearly useless, as most Str based classes will already have those. Also, the Human alternate option is really awesome. A Feat at first level? As well as picking which two stats I'm getting a +1 to? That makes a much wider variety of builds playable from level 1.

Classes are now standardized at 2 saving proficiencies and 2 skills, except rogue of course, with backgrounds reduced to two skills to compensate.
Cantrips known go up by level. Also spells prepared scale with you casting stat, which makes Wis-dump Clerics harder to pull off. Destroy Undead caps off at CR4 undead, which is disappointing. Divine Intervention auto-wins everything at 20, which makes me think that level 20 is not intended to be actually played. Blessed Healer reminds me of my favorite part of 4e healers- self healing when you heal others is fun.
Archery Style is up to a +2, which I like. This really makes archery the accuracy style. New Dueling Style supports sword and board types, which is good. Great Weapon Fighting revamp is interesting. Higher damage, especially with Greatsword/Maul, and the controversial DOAM is gone. Stacks well with new crit rules. Indomitable got nerfed, as it now has a recharge. This makes me sad. Remarkable Athlete is a fun fiddly little ability, which is in line with the Champion Archetype as a whole. I can definitely see myself playing one.
I didn't pay too much attention to the Rogue in the playtest beyond the first couple levels, but a lot of stuff feels like it's changed. Expertise starts off slow and scales, and lets you do Thieves' tools. Kinda shoehorns you into the stereotypical lock-picker/trap-disabler, which I'm not a fan of. But I still like expertise in general, so if you just don't pick that option you can still have some build variety. But sneak attack now only works with ranged and finesse weapons! This makes Str rogues a much less viable option. Cunning action no longer allows item use, which is a bit of a nerf, but the potential for abuse was pretty high there imo. (Yes, I know casters are worse, but within the realm of mundanes it's got potential from abuse.
For Wizard... most of my comments for Cleric applies. I don't play evokers, so I didn't really care about the school features in the playtest.

Stat requirements for multiclassing made it through, which I'm not a fan of. But not all proficiencies auto-granted, which helps with multiclassing abuse, so that's good.

Str requirements for heavy armors:smallmad: But Heavy armor was clarified to not penalize you for having a negative Dex mod (a debate I saw on the WoTC boards). Certain armor types have disappeared, making Heavy armor cap 1 point higher than Light and Med, unlike the playtest where Heavy and Light were both one point higher than Med. Were light crossbows a d8 in playtest? Makes it much more attractive to rogues.

Suggested Personality traits in the backgrounds will be useful for new players. Crafting rules take FOREVER. You don't even get a skill roll to speed things up. As a smith this makes me unhappy. Training rules. Interesting. Also takes a long time, but the fact that they're included at all is... interesting. Bonus actions capped a 1/round. Good. That limits potential abuse. 1 free action/round to use on object. Moving between attacks is still a thing. Good. Standing up costs half your speed. Very interesting, and makes Prone a less-powerful means of crowd control. Another creature's space is difficult terrain in addition to potentially provoking an AO. Makes sense, but reduces mobility. Size caps at gargantuan and bottoms out at Tiny. Farewell Colossal and Fine.

Readying a spell requires Concentration. I think this one's pretty big, as it limits casters in a tactical way. Not enough to bring them down to the level of mundanes, but every little bit of abuse prevention helps. One spell per round unless one of them is a cantrip, which is also good, and Concentration roll required if you take damage. TWF requires a bonus action. This could end up being huge, as it will severely limit any build that has other uses for a bonus action. Grappling and Shoving require only one swing of an attack action if you have multiple attacks. Shoving covers both bull rush and trip. These are both good, as they make a fighter feel like he can do this stuff even if he doesn't specialize in them. Crits double roll ALL DICE, not just damage dice. Makes Rogue crits much more deadly than other classes (and even Clerics, amusingly enough, get more out of that than, say, most Fighter).

Resistance and Vulnerability are applied last. I'm glad they specified that. Damage at 0 rules- you lose death saving throws. Clean mechanic. Only melee attacks can knock unconscious intentionally, but can choose to do so after damage is rolled. Temp HP resets at a long rest and doesn't stack. Mount rules much streamlined compared to 3.5, which is nice. Underwater combat rules are basically disadvantage on weapon rolls with a list of exceptions. Good thing it doesn't come up all that often.


Alternate human = win. Maybe a bit strong but when have they not been?

Also I think the heavy armor strength requirement is there to stop casters (not just wizards) from automatically being able to Don the best armor. If you don't have a pretty good strength then you are stuff with medium or lower armor. Plus this does make sense... Do you know how many strength 10 or under characters I've seen in heavy armor (older editions), the player wouldn't care about load if they didn't have to roll a d20. And there are ways around Arcane Spell Chance failure... So this way even if for a while, casters can't put on heavy armor without some investment.

archaeo
2014-07-03, 03:16 PM
I'm actually a big fan of the section on choosing your character's Sex.

For real though. The paragraph describing characters' sex and sexuality is one of the most inclusive things I've read from a gaming company, and it really cheers me up.

I otherwise have zero expertise w/r/t the mechanics and stuff in this packet. It all seems pretty okay to me; I can't wait to have my hopes dashed against the rocky coast of D&D forums!

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 03:18 PM
Also I think the heavy armor strength requirement is there to stop casters (not just wizards) from automatically being able to Don the best armor. If you don't have a pretty good strength then you are stuff with medium or lower armor. Plus this does make sense... Do you know how many strength 10 or under characters I've seen in heavy armor (older editions), the player wouldn't care about load if they didn't have to roll a d20. And there are ways around Arcane Spell Chance failure... So this way even if for a while, casters can't put on heavy armor without some investment.

Yeah, but a heavily armored caster is one of my favorite types to play. So the fact that I'm going to have to put this much effort into that type of build makes me a bit sad. On the other hand it means that Mountain Dwarf is going to be the heavy armor caster race of choice. Med armor proficiency till you gain Heavy with a feat/multiclass, and the Str to support wearing it.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-03, 03:18 PM
* I think they may have overcompensated for Evocation with abilities like Overchannel. At 10th level, the Wizard is doing more average damage with cantrips than a Fighter with 2 attacks.

At least as far as overchannel is concerned, they can only do that once per day without taking 2d12 (+1d12 cumulative for every attempt after) damage.

pwykersotz
2014-07-03, 03:20 PM
Things I think I don't think I like:
* I think they may have overcompensated for Evocation with abilities like Overchannel. At 10th level, the Wizard is doing more average damage with cantrips than a Fighter with 2 attacks.

The backlash damage can get pretty intense though. I'm not sure you'd want to count long term over-channeled cantrip use as average.

Edit:

1337 b4k4, you dirty Swordsage. :smalltongue:

Chaosvii7
2014-07-03, 03:25 PM
Yeah, but a heavily armored caster is one of my favorite types to play. So the fact that I'm going to have to put this much effort into that type of build makes me a bit sad. On the other hand it means that Mountain Dwarf is going to be the heavy armor caster race of choice. Med armor proficiency till you gain Heavy with a feat/multiclass, and the Str to support wearing it.

I mean, what gish worth their salt isn't going to have at least a 14 Strength? Gotta have a good Strength to pick up that heavy two-handed weapon.

If you're just dipping 1 level of fighter to wear plate armor and not use your Strength score then you're just wasting potential in my opinion.

Water Bob
2014-07-03, 03:33 PM
I haven't followed the birth of D&D 5. I've heard things here and there, sure. But, I've been uninterested in it. I play the Conan RPG, and I don't plan on switching.

Today, though, I saw a posting that said that WotC had released a 110 page set of D&D Fifth Edition Basic Core Rules (http://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/DnDBasicRules.pdf) that contained everything needed to play the game.

What the heck. I took a look.

I am AMAZED at what I read. This game looks GOOD! It seems to be to be a blending of all of the good editions of D&D. In my opinion, the "good" editions are AD&D/2E and D&D 3E/3.5. From what I read in that basic document, the game is easily recognizable as a D&D 3E or 3.X game, but they've toned down the math, made some areas more vague (in a good way) and are promoting roleplaying again.

For all the excellent aspects of 3E, one of the things it did to hurt the game, in my opinion, was to make a dice throw for everything. This encouraged players to just throw on a skill to find a trap, for example, instead of roleplaying out the encounter by using their 10' poles to prod for triggers while searching for scratches on the stone. In my estimation, all that rolling could suck the life out of a game and turn it into a die rolling fest instead of a roleplaying game. I had to adjust to this when I started playing my Conan campaign--a game that is based on d20 3.5 E.

D&D 5 seems to want to bring that roleplaying back into the game while still keeping all of the other excellent features that were pioneered with D&D 3.

I want to see more, but from what I see in this basic document, D&D 5 is something that I am going to like.

Click on the link above and decide for yourself.





Here Are The Notes I Took While Reading the Basic Core Rules For The First Time:

-- The advantage/disadvantage concept is new and neat. You make two d20 rolls when you are attempting a task. If you are advantaged, then you take the higher of the two throws. If you are disadvantaged, then you take the lower roll.

Example: You are sneaking around but wearing armor that is heavy, not flexible, and noisy. You are at a disadvantage when wearing this armor while trying to sneak. You roll twice in order to sneak, taking the lower of the two throws as your sneak throw because you are at a disadvantage.

That's pretty neat.


-- Interesting the ability scores are generated in Step 3 of the character creation process and not in Step 1. Character concept comes first, followed by the stat generation.


-- Humans now get racial bonuses to attributes! That's different.


-- You don't have to roll up a character. You can just use the standard attribute array for quick generation. This was taken from 3rd edition--the DM's quick generation for NPCs. Now, PCs can use it.


-- Wow. They've made it a heck of a lot easier to gain levels at the lower levels. In D&D 3, it took 1000 XP to reach 2nd level. In this game, it only takes 300 XP. I suppose that's an effort to keep characters alive at the lower levels.


-- Character levels are now grouped into tiers, which gives a definition on what the levels mean. I like that.


-- The info on character races in this basic book is more than what I've seen in advanced books for other editions of the game. This is great for roleplaying, for both the DM and the player. Good stuff.


-- The "base" game universe for D&D 5 has gone back to the Forgotten Realms. I'm glad to see that. The Realms was always one of my favorite D&D gaming worlds.


-- Humans have subraces! Based on their nationalities from the Realms. I dig it!


-- Four basic character classes: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Back to basics. Cool. Nice, full class descriptions.


-- There's a note to playing characters as gay or transsexual. Well, aren't we Politically Correct and cognizant of the times.


-- Character background system is presented, with character personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws.


-- I like this: Some heavy armor has a STR requirement. If you can't meet that requirement and wear the armor, your base movement speed is decreased by 10'. Thus, if you're not strong enough to wear the armor, you move a bit slower than those who are strong enough to wear it.


-- Lifestyle Expenses: I love this. PCs pay for all that stuff that happens "off camera".


-- Passive Checks: They're making official what d20 3 and 3.5 users have been doing for a long time. A Passive Check is Taking 10 on a throw (like Pereption) without the usual requirements that are needed for Taking 10 (can't be in combat, etc).


-- Not crazy about the group check rule. I think they could come up with something easier--something based on a single roll for the entire group.


-- Excellent description of how the six attributes are used in the game.


-- Saving Throws are now tied directly to the character's attributes. A DEX save. A CHR save. And so on.


-- The combat round is still 6 seconds long.


-- I like what they did with resting and regaining hit points.


-- Initiative is rolled for every combatant. I never did like rolling initiative for a "side", and I've always used individual initiative in my games.


-- Actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions. This is all nicely done.


-- RANGES! They finally figured out something easier than having to count squares all the time. There are only two ranges for distance weapons, long and short. If at short range, you attack normally. If at long range, you are at a disadvantage and must roll twice for your attack, taking the lower result of the two. THAT'S AWESOME! And easy to play and remember.


-- Skill points have been generically melted down into a class proficiency bonus. While this is easier than keeping up with skill points, I think it makes the characters more generic. Not sure how I feel about this change--and it is a major change.





VERDICT: Everything considered....I like it. I like it a lot.

DeltaEmil
2014-07-03, 03:36 PM
Booooo! The basic PDF fighter is worse than the Playtest version. The Champion archetype is lackluster to its Warrior archetype predecessor.

Sartharina
2014-07-03, 03:37 PM
... I'm torn on the Great Weapon Fighting (Too weak), and am disappointed that there's not a dedicated Sword+Board fighting style for the fighter. And the Duelist... Eh, fighting with only one weapon and nothing in the offhand as a primary combat style feels weird to me, and I'd have expected THAT to be the +Accuracy option, instead of Archery (Which would have done better with damage, to emphasize "One shot, one kill").

Great weapon seems too weak - why not just roll twice and take the better of the two for damage, like the old Weapon Master feat?!

1337 b4k4
2014-07-03, 03:37 PM
One thing I was thinking consistently as I was reading was "This is a heck of a lot more than I expected" especially given that this isn't complete and there's more to come, this really is a complete game for free, not some watered down crippleware version of the game. Yes, there's only one "path" for each of the classes, but they provide decent templates to work from for anyone to build their own.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-03, 03:47 PM
Reading through it now....

...my first impression is that it's not particularly easier to learn than any earlier edition. It's pretty much the same complexity level as 3E, slightly harder than 2E and easier than 4E. Except of course that you don't have to pick feats from a looong list.

Morty
2014-07-03, 03:48 PM
... I'm torn on the Great Weapon Fighting (Too weak), and am disappointed that there's not a dedicated Sword+Board fighting style for the fighter. And the Duelist... Eh, fighting with only one weapon and nothing in the offhand as a primary combat style feels weird to me, and I'd have expected THAT to be the +Accuracy option, instead of Archery (Which would have done better with damage, to emphasize "One shot, one kill").

Great weapon seems too weak - why not just roll twice and take the better of the two for damage, like the old Weapon Master feat?!

There's only so much you can get by shuffling small numbers around.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-03, 03:50 PM
... I'm torn on the Great Weapon Fighting (Too weak), and am disappointed that there's not a dedicated Sword+Board fighting style for the fighter. And the Duelist... Eh, fighting with only one weapon and nothing in the offhand as a primary combat style feels weird to me, and I'd have expected THAT to be the +Accuracy option, instead of Archery (Which would have done better with damage, to emphasize "One shot, one kill").

Great weapon seems too weak - why not just roll twice and take the better of the two for damage, like the old Weapon Master feat?!

Actually Duelist doesn't say you can't wield something in your other hand, it says you can't wield another weapon. I think Duelist is designed to be your sword and board style as well as being a go-to for Finesse Fighters.

But you're right about Duelist, it's weird that the style that most Finesse Fighters are going to be looking at isn't overly synergistic. I don't think I'd be too upset if Archery and Duelist swapped bonuses. But then people doing Sword and Board Duelists would get bonus to-hit for no thematically appropriate reason.

...They may need to rethink the writing behind Duelist so it doesn't have to support a bunch of clashing fantasies of a fighter's capabilities.

That said, I think this version of Great Weapon Fighting is absolutely fine. It's designed to be slightly more fair than, say, wielding a Greatsword and dealing 4d6b2 damage. That's a mechanic that's more better suited for advantage - this feature is designed to help prevent pathetically weak damage rolls, but not make it so that you're rolling superfluous dice for damage that you'll just drop if they don't count.

Also, any ability is better than "damage on a miss". Let's not kid ourselves here.

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 03:53 PM
am disappointed that there's not a dedicated Sword+Board fighting style for the fighter. And the Duelist... Eh, fighting with only one weapon and nothing in the offhand as a primary combat style feels weird to me

It's not "nothing in the offhand" for duelist. It's "no weapon the offhand." So you have have your shield there and benefit from duelist. Or you could just use the Defense option for +1 AC (which you presumably care about as a shield user). Either one is useful, and since Champion gets two fighting styles you might as well have both.

Lord of Shadows
2014-07-03, 03:56 PM
Something left out...?

I don't see any OGL anywhere. There is a copyright statement on the first page that claims copyright over the entire document, including the boilerplate "it's ours and not yours" language, but nothing about opening it up to third parties.

obryn
2014-07-03, 03:58 PM
... I'm torn on the Great Weapon Fighting (Too weak), and am disappointed that there's not a dedicated Sword+Board fighting style for the fighter. And the Duelist... Eh, fighting with only one weapon and nothing in the offhand as a primary combat style feels weird to me, and I'd have expected THAT to be the +Accuracy option, instead of Archery (Which would have done better with damage, to emphasize "One shot, one kill").
The ... Protector? ... one requires a shield. It's fairly "4e Defender" with the downside that too much stuff needs your Reaction.

The Fighter in this packet does look pretty weak though, in general.


One thing I was thinking consistently as I was reading was "This is a heck of a lot more than I expected" especially given that this isn't complete and there's more to come, this really is a complete game for free, not some watered down crippleware version of the game. Yes, there's only one "path" for each of the classes, but they provide decent templates to work from for anyone to build their own.
I agree there. It's certainly a playable game, if you purchase the Starter Kit or other adventures.


Reading through it now....

...my first impression is that it's not particularly easier to learn than any earlier edition. It's pretty much the same complexity level as 3E, slightly harder than 2E and easier than 4E. Except of course that you don't have to pick feats from a looong list.
Honestly, KG, I'm not seeing that at all. I'm not hugely impressed with this release, but it looks a whole lot simpler to pick up & go than any previous WotC edition or WotC edition clone. No contest.

I think it looks just a tad more complex at 1st level than AD&D, but that's it. Certainly much more complicated than RC D&D, but that's to be expected.

There's a lot of stuff about fleshing out your character, though, which is one thing I can really get behind with this edition. Inspiration is a good mechanic.


Something left out...?

I don't see any OGL anywhere. There is a copyright statement on the first page that claims copyright over the entire document, including the boilerplate "it's ours and not yours" language, but nothing about opening it up to third parties.
They have said repeatedly they are not ready to talk about licensing until the Big 3 are completed. I am not surprised at all.

Merlin the Tuna
2014-07-03, 04:11 PM
Reading through it now....

...my first impression is that it's not particularly easier to learn than any earlier edition.And it's dry. So, so dry! This is supposed to be the free-to-play, quick-start guide that gets people hooked! Get to the point, and when you title a chapter "Adventuring," try to have a better lead in than "So here's how overland travel and Forced Marching works."

I'm struck by how much dice rolling and bookkeeping goes into even the more interesting parts. Look at spells like Earthquake and Teleport. These are game-changers, and pretty flashy ones at that. Earthquake can cause Fissures at the GM's discretion - rad! But wait, roll a die to determine how many, then roll a die to determine the dimensions, then roll another die to see what happens to anyone that might be affected. (Earthquake is also on my ****-list for referencing buildings being reduced to 0 HP, which is peak 3E insanity in my book.) Likewise, Teleport can send you off target -- cool! But first you roll a d100 to see if it happens, then you determine the distance to your intended destination, then roll 2d6 and multiply them together to determine what % you're off by, then multiply those to determine the actual number of miles you miss by, then roll another die to determine what direction you miss by. Congratulations, you've taken something potentially cool and turned it into Math and Geography homework.

And yes, those examples are easy to houserule into something not completely terrible. And you don't actually need to use the random Height/Weight by race table, or play with five kinds of currency, or roll random elements of your background. But it all adds up to a very textbook-y feel that doesn't seem to trust anyone at the table, players or GM, to figure out how to run a proper game. It's just sort of... archaic.

Beyond that, I'm surprised that there's nothing in here at all about running a game, nor is there a related download on the WotC page that you download Basic from. That seems like kind of a glaring oversight. Maybe you don't want to include a module in the Basic Set, but it should at least have a blurb like "Check out the adventures like Cave of the Bear Clan on the Wizards of the Coast website!" It just seems really weird to read through 110 pages of rules and still not actually be ready to play a game.

Morty
2014-07-03, 04:23 PM
The ... Protector? ... one requires a shield. It's fairly "4e Defender" with the downside that too much stuff needs your Reaction.

The Fighter in this packet does look pretty weak though, in general.


It's probably the best of all the abilities, since it lets you do something you otherwise can't.

Roland St. Jude
2014-07-03, 04:28 PM
Sheriff: Three general 5 Basic pdf threads were consolidated here. One thread per topic, please.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-03, 04:34 PM
I find that pretty much all racial and class abilities (other than, yes, spellcasting) are simple numerical bonuses or advantage to something you can already do. Other than that, it's okay I guess? It's decent but nothing particularly stands out as good or bad.

Overall, this feels like "3E with a bunch of house rules". Now there's nothing wrong with 3E-with-house-rules, but from a much-hyped official WOTC release I'd expect more. So I'll just say "meh" and leave it at that.

Envyus
2014-07-03, 04:39 PM
Still upset that dead levels have found their way into Next, but it's fair that the two non-spellcasters still get something for every level at least.

Actually there are no dead levels. The on the levels were the casters don't get a new power they get a new spell level.

pwykersotz
2014-07-03, 05:02 PM
I find it very interesting that there's no extra-dimensional storage listed that I can find. No spells or items. This is welcome to me, as it encourages Wizards to have towers to store their stuff and people to have houses. You know, interaction with the game world instead of murderhobo's living out of a bag.

I'm certain it will be added in, but the lack of default assumption seems nice.

Lord of Shadows
2014-07-03, 05:17 PM
Something left out...?

I don't see any OGL anywhere. There is a copyright statement on the first page that claims copyright over the entire document, including the boilerplate "it's ours and not yours" language, but nothing about opening it up to third parties.

They have said repeatedly they are not ready to talk about licensing until the Big 3 are completed. I am not surprised at all.

Huh... Why am I not surprised.

archaeo
2014-07-03, 06:02 PM
Huh... Why am I not surprised.

Perhaps because they've been pretty upfront on the subject?

For what little it's worth, the tea leaves (read: L&L articles and tweets) seem to suggest that WotC will be creating some kind of storefront/homebrew exchange marketplace for players, but their policy for third-party publishers remains uncertain and unclear, even to the extent that non-English publishers have been left in the lurch, so to speak.

If that doesn't make you feel any better, rest assured; 5e is close enough to the OGL that enterprising players and homebrewers are likely to find their way around any crazy licensing issues. One assumes that WotC just wants you to go through them if you're trying to make money.

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 06:02 PM
Something I just noticed: starting wealth vs equipment costs. First of all the fact that you're supposed to roll for starting wealth really irks me, as I'd like to have an "average" number that I can be guaranteed (the same way they did hp, really). But regardless- the starting cash on average for each class is:

Rogue/Wizard: 100gp
Fighter/Cleric: 120-130gp (depending on if I'm rounding that average up or down)

Now let's look at the gear each class will want to start with. Let's start with the rogue:


Studded Leather = 45gp
Rapier = 25gp
Light Crossbow = 25gp
20 Crossbow Bolts = 1gp

That leaves our rogue with all of 4gp to spend on other gear (or more crossbow bolts). No thieves' tools for you, unless you want to give up either your crossbow or downgrade your rapier to a dagger. Alright, how about the Wizard?

Spellbook = 50gp
Component Pouch = 25gp
Arcane Focus = 5-20gp

Leaving him 5-20gp. Better. We'll turn to the Cleric next.

Holy Symbol = 5gp
Simple Weapon = 1-5gp
Chain Mail = 75gp
Shield = 10gp
Herbalism Kit = 5gp

Wow, a whopping 20-34gp range on remaining gold. That's the first class that can actually afford the "pack" on the bottom of page 46 that's considered appropriate for the class. And that's with the heavy armor from Life Domain, if you use light or medium you can save another 25-30 (perhaps for a martial weapon from war domain?). Clerics are where the money's at.

And finally the Fighter. Lots of builds here, but I'll address a few of the more common playstyles:

Archer:
Studded Leather = 45gp
Longbow = 50gp
Shortsword = 10gp OR Rapier = 25gp
Go with the rapier if you rolled more than 120gp total, you end up with 10-15gp to spend on arrows and such. Enough to get you a pack.

Sword & Board:
Chain Mail = 75gp
Shield = 10gp
Longsword = 15gp
Pair of Javelins for throwing = 1gp
This leaves 19-29, which is enough for a pack.

Great Weapon:
Chain Mail = 75gp
Maul = 10gp
Pair of Javelins for throwing = 1gp
This is probably the most cost effective build out there with 34-44gp left, but note that if you opt for a Greatsword instead that sucker costs 50gp! That eats up all your wealth. Stick with a Maul unless you rolled great on cash and really need that Cloud Strife look.

Dual Wielding:
Studded Leather = 45gp
Pair of Shortswords = 20gp
Longbow = 50gp
Similar to the Archer build leaves you with 5-15gp for arrows and a pack.


So what conclusions can we draw? Mostly that after good combat gear most classes don't have a ton of cash on hand for adventuring gear. But mostly that the Rogue, the one who's supposed to be all about the money, gets screwed over the hardest in the starting equipment section. Irony?

Water Bob
2014-07-03, 06:09 PM
Something I just noticed: starting wealth vs equipment costs. First of all the fact that you're supposed to roll for starting wealth really irks me, as I'd like to have an "average" number that I can be guaranteed (the same way they did hp, really).

I like random roll in most things. People are different. In this case, characters come from all sorts of backgrounds. You and I have a different amount of money in our bank accounts.

If you want a averaged number, then just average the roll. Easy enough.

What I'd like to see if a modifier based on some aspect of the character. Maybe use the CHR modifier on the roll somehow, thinking that people that have strong personalities are more likely to get what they want in life those those who are shy.

Just a thought.

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 06:14 PM
I like random roll in most things. People are different. In this case, characters come from all sorts of backgrounds. You and I have a different amount of money in our bank accounts.

If you want a averaged number, then just average the roll. Easy enough.

What I'd like to see if a modifier based on some aspect of the character. Maybe use the CHR modifier on the roll somehow, thinking that people that have strong personalities are more likely to get what they want in life those those who are shy.

Just a thought.

Yeah, I get the roleplaying justification for it. And honestly I like randomness in a lot of my DnD (for example I always have my players roll for stats instead of point buy or arrays). But as per my analysis above, the starting cash is already pretty tight for most of the classes to have the gear they need to function. Rolling a couple of points below average could have catastrophic effects on effectiveness for anyone but a Cleric or Maul using Fighter. That's not a good place for randomness to exist.

Felhammer
2014-07-03, 06:16 PM
Beyond that, I'm surprised that there's nothing in here at all about running a game, nor is there a related download on the WotC page that you download Basic from. That seems like kind of a glaring oversight. Maybe you don't want to include a module in the Basic Set, but it should at least have a blurb like "Check out the adventures like Cave of the Bear Clan on the Wizards of the Coast website!" It just seems really weird to read through 110 pages of rules and still not actually be ready to play a game.

Right now, Basic D&D is a supplement to the Start Set that was released today. Basic D&D will now be slowly fleshed out as each of the big three books are released.

Human Paragon 3
2014-07-03, 06:40 PM
Here are my thoughts about what's in the Basics PDF, in comparison to previous editions:


4e really disappointed, but did a few things really well. Some of the things it did well are adopted into 5, as follows:

-Death rules
-Ritual casting (being able to cast certain spells without preparing them because they are so niche)
-Making abilities more encounter-based instead of daly

And others were semi-adopted, including

-A simplified skill system
-More differences between weapons

They stole a bunch of good ideas from other RPGs, like

-Character backgrounds that give you abilities that customize your characters
-Having character goals and connections listed on the character sheet as part of character generation
-Simplified book keeping (pay a fixed price for your lifestyle)

And fixed some of the worst screw ups from 4, like

-Skill challenges are gone
-No stereo-instructions for character class powers
-Bringing back the saving throw as we know it
-Added back in a crafting and profession system (but far simpler and easier to use than 3e's)

And best of all, reverted to AD&D's more streamlined combat

-Move your speed
-Make all attacks you are entitled to (usually 1 unless you are a fighter)
-Split your move and attacks any way you want

And made a simple, common-sense rule for all other actions

-Every round, you can do 1 extra thing.

A few innovations also stand out:

-Spellcasters must concentrate on many spells now, and readying a spell breaks concentration. This will greatly reduce caster's dominance, since they can't have a ton of continues effects going at once
-Advantage/Disadvantage is really slick. Something good happening? Roll twice and take the better! Something bad happening? Roll twice and take the worse. This is pretty much the only situational modifier that can happen now, and is so slick, versatile, and easy to use and remember.


The one other thing 4e did really well was monsters and encounters. I haven't seen anything about this for 5, so I don't know what they did, but I have a feeling they made it more like 3.5, which is a mistake in my opinion.

Water Bob
2014-07-03, 06:43 PM
Yeah, I get the roleplaying justification for it. And honestly I like randomness in a lot of my DnD (for example I always have my players roll for stats instead of point buy or arrays). But as per my analysis above, the starting cash is already pretty tight for most of the classes to have the gear they need to function. Rolling a couple of points below average could have catastrophic effects on effectiveness for anyone but a Cleric or Maul using Fighter. That's not a good place for randomness to exist.

I think the point in that rule is that beginning characters should have nothing but the bare bones basics. If a fighter wants a sword rather than a club, then maybe he should go with less expensive leather armor. Or, if he wants a longsword, then he doesn't get the chainmail.

That way, beginning characters must adventure to improve their equipment.

I kinda like starting that way. Though, maybe the main book will have starting adventure kits that players can pick instead of buying their own gear.

Envyus
2014-07-03, 07:00 PM
The one other thing 4e did really well was monsters and encounters. I haven't seen anything about this for 5, so I don't know what they did, but I have a feeling they made it more like 3.5, which is a mistake in my opinion.

It's more like 4e then 3e in my opinion.

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 07:07 PM
It's more like 4e then 3e in my opinion.

I agree. Monsters not being built using the same rules as PCs is my primary justification for that, though. Depends on what you're looking for in a monster.

Secret Bard
2014-07-03, 07:11 PM
Something I just noticed: starting wealth vs equipment costs. First of all the fact that you're supposed to roll for starting wealth really irks me, as I'd like to have an "average" number that I can be guaranteed (the same way they did hp, really). But regardless- the starting cash on average for each class is:

Rogue/Wizard: 100gp
Fighter/Cleric: 120-130gp (depending on if I'm rounding that average up or down)

Now let's look at the gear each class will want to start with. Let's start with the rogue:


Studded Leather = 45gp
Rapier = 25gp
Light Crossbow = 25gp
20 Crossbow Bolts = 1gp

That leaves our rogue with all of 4gp to spend on other gear (or more crossbow bolts). No thieves' tools for you, unless you want to give up either your crossbow or downgrade your rapier to a dagger. Alright, how about the Wizard?

Spellbook = 50gp
Component Pouch = 25gp
Arcane Focus = 5-20gp

Leaving him 5-20gp. Better. We'll turn to the Cleric next.

Holy Symbol = 5gp
Simple Weapon = 1-5gp
Chain Mail = 75gp
Shield = 10gp
Herbalism Kit = 5gp

Wow, a whopping 20-34gp range on remaining gold. That's the first class that can actually afford the "pack" on the bottom of page 46 that's considered appropriate for the class. And that's with the heavy armor from Life Domain, if you use light or medium you can save another 25-30 (perhaps for a martial weapon from war domain?). Clerics are where the money's at.

And finally the Fighter. Lots of builds here, but I'll address a few of the more common playstyles:

Archer:
Studded Leather = 45gp
Longbow = 50gp
Shortsword = 10gp OR Rapier = 25gp
Go with the rapier if you rolled more than 120gp total, you end up with 10-15gp to spend on arrows and such. Enough to get you a pack.

Sword & Board:
Chain Mail = 75gp
Shield = 10gp
Longsword = 15gp
Pair of Javelins for throwing = 1gp
This leaves 19-29, which is enough for a pack.

Great Weapon:
Chain Mail = 75gp
Maul = 10gp
Pair of Javelins for throwing = 1gp
This is probably the most cost effective build out there with 34-44gp left, but note that if you opt for a Greatsword instead that sucker costs 50gp! That eats up all your wealth. Stick with a Maul unless you rolled great on cash and really need that Cloud Strife look.

Dual Wielding:
Studded Leather = 45gp
Pair of Shortswords = 20gp
Longbow = 50gp
Similar to the Archer build leaves you with 5-15gp for arrows and a pack.


So what conclusions can we draw? Mostly that after good combat gear most classes don't have a ton of cash on hand for adventuring gear. But mostly that the Rogue, the one who's supposed to be all about the money, gets screwed over the hardest in the starting equipment section. Irony?

Each class has it's own set of equipment that it starts out with, I believe this is in addition to the starting wealth; but maybe I'm wrong?

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 07:14 PM
Each class has it's own set of equipment that it starts out with, I believe this is in addition to the starting wealth; but maybe I'm wrong?

PAGE 42:
"When you create your character, you receive equipment
based on a combination of your class and background.
Alternatively, you can start with a number of gold pieces
based on your class and spend them on items from the
lists in this chapter."

Secret Bard
2014-07-03, 07:18 PM
PAGE 42:
"When you create your character, you receive equipment
based on a combination of your class and background.
Alternatively, you can start with a number of gold pieces
based on your class and spend them on items from the
lists in this chapter."


Oops missed that part, sorry.

Yorrin
2014-07-03, 07:21 PM
Oops missed that part, sorry.

Meh. The sad part is that the pregen packages will prolly end up equipping you better than buying custom equipment, to a degree. I mean, I bet you could even sell off one of those packages at half market price to buy the gear I suggested and still come out on top for having started with the pregen package.

Thrudd
2014-07-03, 10:12 PM
Like:
Random tables! Backgrounds with randomly determined personality, ideals, etc. are fun. All random tables are fun. Random trinket: a box with a living two-headed worm inside.

Lifestyle expenses, downtime activities

Exhaustion and rules for not eating and drinking, and suffocating

Mechanical effects of travel speed and actions taken during travel (though hopefully there will be more of this in PHB or DMG, along with clearly laid out travel/exploration turns and the time it takes to perform actions at this scale)

Passive perception score included on the sheet, mechanical effects of dim light areas (making light sources important)

It takes more than one long rest to recover used HD

Spells requiring use of higher level slots to be more effective, instead of automatically scaling. Lower level spells can still be relevant later in the game.

Concentration spells

Dislike: Cantrips still scale with level, and do too much damage (wizards shouldn't be able to keep pace with fighters in terms of round-to-round damage dealt in combat, they already have powerful fight-ending spells).

Level 2 and 3 are basically freebies, hardly any XP required. I know the line of thought behind this, just don't agree with it.

Multiple sources of advantage/disadvantage have no effect, a single source of advantage cancels out any number of disadvantage sources and vice versa.

Getting hit while you are dying prompts a death saving throw (fine), which could potentially result in regaining 1HP and consciousness (not fine)! A targeted attack on an unconscious foe should be automatic death, no more saving throws.

**********
Lots of little nitpicks and concerns that will mostly need to be seen in playing before I decide what I feel about them, like high spell damage, various spell effects, class abilities.

Overall, I can see this being fun. I don't think it can replicate or replace my favored old-school style for D&D, but I will need to see the DMG and other options that come later. For now, some of the liked mechanics might make their way into an OSR-style hybrid game.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-03, 10:23 PM
Getting hit while you are dying prompts a death saving throw (fine), which could potentially result in regaining 1HP and consciousness (not fine)! A targeted attack on an unconscious foe should be automatic death, no more saving throws.
.

Getting hit means you mark a failed saving throw, not that you roll a saving throw.

brocadecity
2014-07-03, 10:24 PM
Dislike: Cantrips still scale with level, and do too much damage (wizards shouldn't be able to keep pace with fighters in terms of round-to-round damage dealt in combat, they already have powerful fight-ending spells).

I'm not sure if I like it or dislike it, but my eyes kind of popped when I read all of these spells that I used to know as D4-type spells being D8-type spells with additional effects. Like Ray of Frost is somewhat scary to get hit with now.

Zweisteine
2014-07-03, 11:10 PM
There's so much I want to say, but I don't have that kind of time to write a post, so I'll stick to the most important bits.

Responding to something in post #63 that caught my eye:

-- Lifestyle Expenses: I love this. PCs pay for all that stuff that happens "off camera".
They had those in 3e as well. After level 1 (i.e. as soon as you do some adventuring) the price of living is pocket change. Unless you want to pay for aristocratc living, which is totally unnecessary, you can effectively live your life without paying any meaningful amounts, as long as you adventure.

More interesting is to see if the prices of living hold up when you try to buy meals (etc.) with them.


Most importantly: look at page 1 (the cover) of the PDF.

Playtesting provided by

over 175,000 fans of D&D. Thank you!
Below that, is "additional consultation."
And below that... is a disclaimer.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, ďAre you really sure?Ē

Thrudd
2014-07-03, 11:46 PM
Getting hit means you mark a failed saving throw, not that you roll a saving throw.

You're right, misread it.

Envyus
2014-07-03, 11:48 PM
You're right, misread it.

Plus if you take your maximum hit points in damage while downed you die anyway.

pwykersotz
2014-07-03, 11:49 PM
They had those in 3e as well. After level 1 (i.e. as soon as you do some adventuring) the price of living is pocket change. Unless you want to pay for aristocratc living, which is totally unnecessary, you can effectively live your life without paying any meaningful amounts, as long as you adventure.

More interesting is to see if the prices of living hold up when you try to buy meals (etc.) with them.

Well, since magic items are no longer a commodity, in theory there's no more gold ladder. You can actually have poor 20th level adventurers if something compels them to not sell their skills for hire, such as personal beliefs, the will of their deity, etc.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-04, 12:40 AM
Very tangential, but I've come up with a little houserule for Evasion.


Beginning at 7th level, you can nimbly dodge out of the way of area effects, such as a red dragon's fiery breath or an ice storm spell. When you are subjected to an effect that selects multiple targets and requires a saving throw to succeed on a partial effect, you instead take no ill effects if you succeed on the saving throw, and only suffer the partial effect if you fail.

Made it a lot more versatile; It now applies to all AoE spells and effects that require a saving throw. It also now functions with abilities that don't deal damage but still are AoE(I don't think there's anything in basic D&D that is AoE but doesn't deal damage; If cloudkill is in the Player's Handbook I imagine that'd be one such example of a partial effect ability that would apply.)

The only downside is that it means that they gain a lot more from dumping their Inspiration points into negating disadvantage/gaining advantage on saving throws.

Just thought I'd share it to see what everybody thinks.

HunterOfJello
2014-07-04, 12:54 AM
Anyone else notice that there's a line in the Beyond 1st Level section which says, "You can't increase an ability score above 20"(pg 10). However, the table on page 9 has scores that go to 30. Does this make sense to anyone?

pwykersotz
2014-07-04, 12:59 AM
Anyone else notice that there's a line in the Beyond 1st Level section which says, "You can't increase an ability score above 20"(pg 10). However, the table on page 9 has scores that go to 30. Does this make sense to anyone?

Monsters are stated to be able to go to 30.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-04, 01:00 AM
Anyone else notice that there's a line in the Beyond 1st Level section which says, "You can't increase an ability score above 20"(pg 10). However, the table on page 9 has scores that go to 30. Does this make sense to anyone?

You cannot increase your scores above 20 through character creation and ability score advancements; However, there were magic items in the playtest(Such as the belt of giant's strength) that could increase it above 20. I'm sure there will be spell options available that can increase it too.

TheOOB
2014-07-04, 02:01 AM
Overall I like it. The skills system is a little barebones(and the listed DC's are all 5 higher than they should be), and I'm hoping they don't screw up the feats.

Anyone else notice that the Champion Martial Archtype is bad? The two critical abilities are terrible(adding at best .375 extra average damage to an attack), remarkable athlete at best add's +3 to some generically useful, but not overwhelming rolls(nothing that will make you a god in combat), and I don't see 10 hp a level if you're halfway gone to be a huge deal at level 18. The rest of the fighter abilities are good, really good even, but I hope the other Martial Archtypes are not so...terrible.

HunterOfJello
2014-07-04, 02:45 AM
Anyone else notice that the Champion Martial Archtype is bad? The two critical abilities are terrible(adding at best .375 extra average damage to an attack), remarkable athlete at best add's +3 to some generically useful, but not overwhelming rolls(nothing that will make you a god in combat), and I don't see 10 hp a level if you're halfway gone to be a huge deal at level 18. The rest of the fighter abilities are good, really good even, but I hope the other Martial Archtypes are not so...terrible.

Agreed. The only feature of the Champion that really stands out is an additional Fighting Style at level 10. I really like the fighting styles.

Fighters are actually impressive in melee compared to the other classes once you add in wider crit ranges, iterative attacks (which other classes don't get!), and their Fighting Style of choise. This definitely changes the Fighter from being "that one guy who is a little bit better with a mace than the cleric" to "the guy next to the cleric who doesn't suck at fighting like Mr. HolyPants".

Sartharina
2014-07-04, 03:31 AM
I actually like that cantrips deal decent damage at all levels. Not sure how much I like the idea of them out-pacing a Fighter's damage (Does it really?), but it does make casters an enduring "Glass Cannon".

One of the houserules I enjoyed using in Pathfinder was with tweaking the way damage scaled for cantrips and blasts - essentially making its cantrips deal the 1d6+1/2 levels and those blasts dealing (d4/d6/d8)/2 levels damage.

T.G. Oskar
2014-07-04, 03:39 AM
I didn't even recall they'd release the Basic Rules yesterday, but I took a cursory glance at it (a cursory, yes, but pretty fixed glance at it).

So far, I've been gasping with surprise more than frowning in shame. Who would have thought of it?

For starters, and something that really caught my attention: you can now make all your iteratives as an Attack action. Apparently, all attacks will be done at no other penalty than that of your base attack bonus. However, you can split your move while attacking: thus, if you have two attacks, and you down someone with the first, and the other is within movement range...you can move and smack it. And only the martial classes will get that (Fighter, Barb, Paladin, Ranger...Warlord? I would have liked "Marshal", but meh...)

Second is Ability Score Advancement. +2 to one score, or +1 to two scores. Exactly as I do in 3.5. That's pretty good!

Third...the Skill proficiency list for Fighters. About time they get Perception and Survival, and their list is no slouch. You still get 2 proficiencies, but considering you land 2 more from your Background, that should suffice.

The weapons are interesting, to say the least. Longswords gain their old damage ratio if one-handed, and the Bastard Sword damage ratio if two-handed. Pikes dealing 1d12 damage with reach. Scimitars being both Light (i.e. good for TWF) and Finessable (i.e. you use your Dexterity with them). Speaking of which: Weapon Finesse is now integrated to weapons! It's not like it's perfect, though: the Morningstar is now a pale shadow of what it once was. I shudder to see what they did to it.

Which leads to stuff I don't like. Such as...well, Heavy Armor users are somewhat hosed, though the restraint on Ability Scores should work it out. A character with 20 Dex and an item that grants a +2 to Dexterity, if allowed, will have the same AC with a Studded Leather than a Full Plate-wielding character. Even then, 17 AC to the Full Plate's 18 seems kinda unfair, since the Studded Leather wielder will probably have a lot of use from Dex while the Full Plate wearer won't exploit that. I would have hoped for some DR to compensate (houserules, houserules!)

Oh yeah, and...Clerics get Miracle at 10th level 1/week. That's pretty much what Divine Intervention means.

Still need to read it a bit more, but I get a huge vibe from the Dragon Age RPG: the Skill system notation is pretty much identical, and it works almost exactly the same: compare "make a Dexterity (Stealth) vs. Perception (Seeing) test" to "make a Dexterity (Stealth) check opposed by your target's Wisdom (Perception) check". At its core, with the Proficiency Bonus acting as a "focus", you get the same resolution as with the AGE system. It's...simple, but effective.

I actually gasped at the Great Weapon Fighter style. Going just through 3.5 and PF, it's actually pretty decent for when you get a sucky roll with a weapon. Note that it says "damage die", so Greatswords have a huge advantage there (both dice resulted in 1 or 2? Re-roll both, apparently...)

Oh, and the Races. They're exactly as the old-school ones, but it's the subraces that really kick things in. Sure: the Elf still retains its immunity to sleep, its resistance to charm, its darkvision (yes: Elves officially recovered Infravision/Darkvision)...but it's the subrace choices what make it interesting. Free cantrip if you're a High Elf? Dwarves get free proficiencies in axes AND hammers, which is great, they get slightly better movement now (still reduced compared to the rest, but it's 25 ft. now, not 20 ft.)

As for odd quirks:
Here I am speaking about Dragon Age RPG, and one of the female name choices is "Andraste". I heartily L'edOL when I saw it. More than the sample character (goodness gracious; Bruenor Battlehammer!?).
The wide range of deity examples: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, and three major Earth pantheons.
Halfling Stealth. That will make one of my players VERY happy.

It's still too early (and I need to definitely read it and speak it with my group), but I have this vibe that the game is meant to be easy...to those who already know the game. DARPG is hilariously easy to play, and pretty complex (though Mages rule there, so much I tell the GM that the game should be called "Dragon Mage"), and just by going through the first pages (and the way the rules are detailed), I really got the vibe of the attempt of making the game easier to play. It lacks the full extent of the rules from the OGL, but it sorta fills its purpose. Sorta for one reason: you really can't expect to play "multiple campaigns from 1-20" because you're left with the barebones (at most you can mix and match different weapon choices, spell choices, race/class choices, but at the end, you're always pushed to one specific focus), but you get enough tools to work with.

That's as much as I can say now. It does something, though: it gives me curiosity to see the PHB and the full extent of the rules, and see how things changed. Morbid curiosity or genuine curiosity, whatever it is. Goodness gracious, does the DC of Paladin spells will be exactly the same as that of Clerics and Wizards, plus they get Heavy Armor Proficiency, multiple attacks as per the Fighter, and do they keep the Green Warden archetype?

Yora
2014-07-04, 03:41 AM
Like all d20 games, this one is a game in which you are supposed to be entertained by the rules and a major part of playing it lies in finding and applying effective combinations of the rules.
I did expect this, but did take a look anyway. Since I consider it a fundamental flaw of the d20 system and the opposite of what I want from an RPG, this is not a game for me.

Morty
2014-07-04, 05:25 AM
The rest of the fighter abilities are good, really good even, but I hope the other Martial Archtypes are not so...terrible.

I find it rather strange. Apparently, there's an alternate fighter path that has a decently sized list of maneuvers. But there's pretty much no way for something like that to be balanced with the sad list of small passive bonuses the Champion gets. So either the 'advanced' fighter will be cut down to size, or strictly superior to the simple version we see now.



The weapons are interesting, to say the least. Longswords gain their old damage ratio if one-handed, and the Bastard Sword damage ratio if two-handed. Pikes dealing 1d12 damage with reach. Scimitars being both Light (i.e. good for TWF) and Finessable (i.e. you use your Dexterity with them). Speaking of which: Weapon Finesse is now integrated to weapons! It's not like it's perfect, though: the Morningstar is now a pale shadow of what it once was. I shudder to see what they did to it.

The weapons table is anything but interesting - it could be reduced to one third of its size while giving players exactly as much, or more, freedom in choosing their weapon. Weapon Finesse is integrated, yes, but the list of weapons you can use with finesse is still short. And crossbows are still useless.

Beleriphon
2014-07-04, 05:30 AM
Beyond that, I'm surprised that there's nothing in here at all about running a game, nor is there a related download on the WotC page that you download Basic from. That seems like kind of a glaring oversight. Maybe you don't want to include a module in the Basic Set, but it should at least have a blurb like "Check out the adventures like Cave of the Bear Clan on the Wizards of the Coast website!" It just seems really weird to read through 110 pages of rules and still not actually be ready to play a game.

The Basic docs are getting updated once the PHB is released in August to include a DM section. Mike Mearls has mentioned that a few times in posts recently. My assumption is to get the core play group hooked on the game, get them to buy the PHB then give them a taste of the DMG.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-04, 07:51 AM
I find it rather strange. Apparently, there's an alternate fighter path that has a decently sized list of maneuvers. But there's pretty much no way for something like that to be balanced with the sad list of small passive bonuses the Champion gets. So either the 'advanced' fighter will be cut down to size, or strictly superior to the simple version we see now.
.

Who says each class has to be balanced with other classes? You can have a weak and easy fighter subclass and then a more powerful fighter subclass.

Balance between classes don't really matter. As long as each class can keep up with the game and be useful from level 1 to 20 it is ok to have power disparity between classes or sub classes.

Because this isn't a PvP game.

However this version of the fighter doesn't have manybfun things they can do outside of "move and attack". All of their abilities seemed to be focused around " I move and attack" and quite frankly looks boring after level 3. By that time I'll be done with that style. Though I guess the shove mechanic is in there....

The maneuver fighter could be on par with the cleric or wizard if they wanted it to be. Just depends on how fantasy they want to make it. Hopefully in this edition they don't make a club called "Fantasy" in which has a sign that says "Casters Only".

Edit:

A Fighter right now can use the Shove action in place of any melee attack.

Shove is essentially a bullrush or trip. Starting primarily at 5th level any non archer fighter (houserule: archers can shove at range w/disadvantage by using acrobatics versus athletics or acrobatics) can Shove (Trip) + Attack + Attack (Action Surge). While prone won't allow trip lock as much as before (1/2 move speed to get up) it is a great way to gain advantage doe your attack roll. A fighter can have proficiency in Athletics. Mostly starting at level 5 the fighter's tactics will probably be attack attack attack, but for those that want some change up at least the fighter can do something... I'm looking for other actions in combat that everyone can do that the fighter may just be better at.... Would have been nice to get real options within the class but I'll wait for the PHB.

Edit 2:

This fighter is just the 3.5 fighter with some pretty abilities. I hope they take 2e's Complete Fighter Handbook and ToB and make a decent fighter next time.

Would love to see more options

1of3
2014-07-04, 08:22 AM
Shove (Trip) + Attack + Attack (Action Surge)

Action Surge does not provide an additional attack, but an additional action. If you choose the Attack action, your Extra Attack will kick in again offering two additional attacks. So a 5th level fighter who surges has four attacks on that turn.

StabbityRabbit
2014-07-04, 09:42 AM
I've only quickly skimmed the basic pdf, and it looks like greataxes are weak. I hope this isn't true, but that's not looking very likely. Maybe I should just give the document a better read through?

Morty
2014-07-04, 09:52 AM
I've only quickly skimmed the basic pdf, and it looks like greataxes are weak. I hope this isn't true, but that's not looking very likely. Maybe I should just give the document a better read through?

Weak how? They're identical to greatswords.

StabbityRabbit
2014-07-04, 10:01 AM
Weak how? They're identical to greatswords.

Greataxes deal 1d12 of damage while greatswords deal 2d6. This means that greatswords will deal more average damage than greataxes.

Composer99
2014-07-04, 10:09 AM
I dare say the greatsword's average 7 + Strength damage advantage over the greataxe's average 6.5 + Strength damage is adequately reflected in it being 20 gp more expensive.

Edit to add: That is to say, while I agree that the greatsword is a (slightly) stronger weapon, overall, it does not follow that the greataxe is weak, especially relative to other, obviously weaker weapons.

Callin
2014-07-04, 10:18 AM
I like the Ritual Magic that they got going on. Does not use a spell slot, just gotta cast it. As a Cleric you have to have it prepared that day and if a Wizard you just have to have it in your Spellbook. Thats nice

Yorrin
2014-07-04, 10:20 AM
Balance between classes don't really matter. As long as each class can keep up with the game and be useful from level 1 to 20 it is ok to have power disparity between classes or sub classes.

Because this isn't a PvP game.

Thank you. I know a lot of people are overly concerned with making sure that all the classes are balanced against each other, but as long as each class is capable of contributing to an encounter then I don't see the problem (liner fighter quadratic wizard aside).


Weak how? They're identical to greatswords.

False. 2d6 is far more stable than 1d12 and takes better advantage of the Great Weapon focus for Fighters (and Rangers and Paladins, presumably)

obryn
2014-07-04, 10:27 AM
I've only quickly skimmed the basic pdf, and it looks like greataxes are weak. I hope this isn't true, but that's not looking very likely. Maybe I should just give the document a better read through?
If you have the Fighter GWF talent, then great swords are strictly superior.

Right now, great axes are a consolation prize if you get a free proficiency.

A suggested house rule is to roll an extra weapon die and take the best. So 3d6 take 2, or 2d12 take 1.

Morty
2014-07-04, 10:31 AM
Greataxes deal 1d12 of damage while greatswords deal 2d6. This means that greatswords will deal more average damage than greataxes.



False. 2d6 is far more stable than 1d12 and takes better advantage of the Great Weapon focus for Fighters (and Rangers and Paladins, presumably)

That's not a terribly meaningful difference, you know. Especially when we account for the damage bonus from strength, magic and so forth. Like I said, they should have just folded the weapons table in on itself, so that there are light, regular one handed and two-handed weapons, and finesse-able one handed and two handed weapons. Then let players add properties like reach, versatility or heaviness. The end result would be the same, but it'd take up less space and make more room for future modules.


Thank you. I know a lot of people are overly concerned with making sure that all the classes are balanced against each other, but as long as each class is capable of contributing to an encounter then I don't see the problem (liner fighter quadratic wizard aside).

Well then, let's hope WotC feels the same way and doesn't forcibly balance the fighter subclass with actual choices against the one that can only hit things round after round.

Doug Lampert
2014-07-04, 10:35 AM
I dare say the greatsword's average 7 + Strength damage advantage over the greataxe's average 6.5 + Strength damage is adequately reflected in it being 20 gp more expensive.

Edit to add: That is to say, while I agree that the greatsword is a (slightly) stronger weapon, overall, it does not follow that the greataxe is weak, especially relative to other, obviously weaker weapons.

Great weapon style says "hi, I'll be taken by most people using either of these weapons in core", so it's 8 1/3 damage vs. 7 1/3, which gives a full point. The greataxe also weighs more, unless there are axe based feats or special powers the sole reason to use the axe is to save 20 GP, so by level 3 the weapon is almost completely unused because a fairly trivial expenditure ups your average damage by 1.

Note that crits double the number of dice, so +2 damage on a crit.

Strong and weak exist only in comparison to other options, if there are weapons even worse than the greataxe, which is almost globally inferior to another weapon on an adjacent line of the chart, then that is NOT a recommendation for using the greataxe, it just means that those other weapons are worse than a nearly uselessly weak thing. Because the greataxe is nearly uselessly weak since it's only purpose is to save 20 gold at the cost of more weight and to slightly increase the variance on damage (which is bad by the way, more random is nearly globally bad for PCs).

Edited to add: Note that the MAIN damage scaling in 5th is from extra attacks, magic items are optional, attributes cap at +5. At level 20 the difference in total damage is over 8%. That's a noticeable change in effectiveness.



Math note on great weapon fighting:
Great weapon activates 1/6 of the time on the axe, when it activates you do 6.5 on average since you reroll and take the result regardless of value; when it doesn't (5/6th of the time) you do 7.5 on average since you rolled a 3-12 with equal probability.

Basically, it doesn't activate 5/6 of the time and adds 5/6 of a point to damage on average since rolling well enough for non-activation is worth a +1 on average.

Each d6 activates great weapon 1/3 of the time, when it does you do 3.5 on average; when it doesn't (2/3 chance) you do 4.5 on average.

Same logic, it doesn't activate 2/3 of the time and adds 2/3 of a point to damage on average. Two dice so +4/3.

This works for any d2 or more, great weapon fighting is worth +(die size-2)/(die size) damage.

Psyren
2014-07-04, 10:35 AM
My thoughts:

- I really like the Ability Score Improvement. +2 to one or +1 to two is great, and apparently you can forego it for a bonus feat if you're really gunning for some prereq or you've maxed out your ability score. So now we have a solid yardstick by which to measure the feats. I'm not sure why they put it on the class table like it's a class feature though, just to pretend that level isn't a dead level in some cases.

- I don't like the ability score caps at all. Why 20? That seems an oppressively low ceiling. I know items can raise it higher and monsters can go up to 30 but there are monsters with stats in the high 30s all the way up to low 50s in the MM. How will those get translated to 5e? Can they be?

- Fighter 2 dip is still going to be the greatest dip ever in this edition thanks to Action Surge.

- No bonus spells. I suppose the more powerful cantrips (at-wills) can offset this but it still feels jarring.

- Why do clerics have poor fort (Constitution) saves now? Do I even want them in melee where they could get poisoned or hit with a nasty touch spell?

- Why is playing a stringed instrument a Dexterity check if Perform is still under Cha?

- What happens if you Overchannel a Cantrip?

Going through the spells now.

obryn
2014-07-04, 10:44 AM
There are now stat prereqs on both sides of multiclassing now, evidently.

Doug Lampert
2014-07-04, 10:44 AM
My thoughts:

- I really like the Ability Score Improvement. +2 to one or +1 to two is great, and apparently you can forego it for a bonus feat if you're really gunning for some prereq or you've maxed out your ability score. So now we have a solid yardstick by which to measure the feats. I'm not sure why they put it on the class table like it's a class feature though, just to pretend that level isn't a dead level in some cases.

- I don't like the ability score caps at all. Why 20? That seems an oppressively low ceiling. I know items can raise it higher and monsters can go up to 30 but there are monsters with stats in the high 30s all the way up to low 50s in the MM. How will those get translated to 5e? Can they be?

That's not a bonus feat you're trading it for, that's the only way you get a feat, there are no feats just for leveling. And the reason they're on the class table is that fighters get them faster than the other classes, fighters get an extra improvement at levels 6 and 14. It also matters that ability improvements are on the class tables because it means the level 2 fighter dip costs you an ability improvement at about half your levels.

And 5th monster manual is not the 3rd edition monster manual, it allegedly doesn't have any abilities higher than 30.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-04, 10:51 AM
My thoughts:

- I really like the Ability Score Improvement. +2 to one or +1 to two is great, and apparently you can forego it for a bonus feat if you're really gunning for some prereq or you've maxed out your ability score. So now we have a solid yardstick by which to measure the feats. I'm not sure why they put it on the class table like it's a class feature though, just to pretend that level isn't a dead level in some cases.

- I don't like the ability score caps at all. Why 20? That seems an oppressively low ceiling. I know items can raise it higher and monsters can go up to 30 but there are monsters with stats in the high 30s all the way up to low 50s in the MM. How will those get translated to 5e? Can they be?

- Fighter 2 dip is still going to be the greatest dip ever in this edition thanks to Action Surge.

- No bonus spells. I suppose the more powerful cantrips (at-wills) can offset this but it still feels jarring.

- Why do clerics have poor fort (Constitution) saves now? Do I even want them in melee where they could get poisoned or hit with a nasty touch spell?

- Why is playing a stringed instrument a Dexterity check if Perform is still under Cha?

- What happens if you Overchannel a Cantrip?

Going through the spells now.

Although I hate ability score improvement based on race, the way they did it isn't as bad as I thought it would be.

The cap is because of bounded accuracy I believe. Take it as the maximum potential that a creature (PC) has. Like Captain America has the most Strength a human can possibly have without the aid of outside sources, our PCs can eventually obtain that potential in one or two stats and can't go beyond it without magical aid or whatever (Belt of Giant Strength).

Fighter dip 2... Yes it can be problematic but all you really need to say that multiclass characters only get a bonus action to do X, Y, Z or just fix the multiclass system up where it won't be a problem. But hey, at least the easy/simple Fighter is good for something :smallannoyed:.

No bonus spells is perhaps a call back to before the game went down the slippery slope of Power Gaming which we call 3e. Class level is hat determines your ability to cast spells, ability scores determine how well you cast what you know. Besides with the cantrips and the flexible casting system I doubt knowing a few extra spells will be missed.

Meh, so the Cleric doesn't get good Con saves. I wonder if the Paladin will... But hey it isn't like the cleric has some sort of class feature that can neutralize or reverse any poison or hit point damage they may take... :smallbiggrin:

There is a difference between being able to play an instrument well and being able to put on a show. They probably need to revise the skill list a bit but actually playing a Guitar for instance requires good to great dexterity while putting on a concert requires both that (ok not all good concerts have good musicians) and the ability to impress people and such.

I don't want to think about what happens when you Over Channel a cantrip.

Also I'm pretty sure this Wizard is a Psion or Wilder refluffed to be an Arcane caster.

Psyren
2014-07-04, 11:20 AM
That's not a bonus feat you're trading it for, that's the only way you get a feat, there are no feats just for leveling. And the reason they're on the class table is that fighters get them faster than the other classes, fighters get an extra improvement at levels 6 and 14. It also matters that ability improvements are on the class tables because it means the level 2 fighter dip costs you an ability improvement at about half your levels.

Wow, so multiclassing actually makes your stats weaker. Well that's certainly one way to discourage it. (Hell, if you dip enough, you might not get any, nor any feats besides.)


And 5th monster manual is not the 3rd edition monster manual, it allegedly doesn't have any abilities higher than 30.

That's a ridiculous cap to hold themselves to - it will make converting high level monsters much harder. In 3e, an Iron Golem has 33 Str, a Balor and a Marut have 35, a Great Wyrm Black has 39, the Tarrasque has 45, and an Ancient Red has 39 - will they all have equal strength in 5e? (Will dragons past Ancient even exist?)

Callin
2014-07-04, 11:36 AM
Greater Strength could probably be portrayed as higher proficiency on attacks and greater damage dice.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-04, 11:37 AM
I figure that if the feats are any good, you should prioritize taking those over getting a +5% to hit. After all, it's not that hard to start with an 18 in your primary at level 1, and that should be enough to last you through the game.

I find it disappointing how few feats characters get, though; the decision for both 4E and PF was that players love feats so let's give them more. Over the scope of ten levels (and let's face it, most campaigns don't last longer than that) a 3E character gets four feats, PF gets five, 4E gives you six, and 5E nets you only two...

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-04, 11:41 AM
Greater Strength could probably be portrayed as higher proficiency on attacks and greater damage dice.

Yeah this works just fine.

The thing about ability scores is that they are all relative. It doesn't matter what you actually put them at as long as weak monster Y has less strength than strong monster X.

Callin
2014-07-04, 11:41 AM
I think the Human Variant of +1 to 2 Stats a Bonus Skill and a Free Feat at lvl 1 is going to cement the human in OPness for most things.

But honestly so far I am loving the Elves again in this Edition. They gained nothing really in 3.x. Now they remind me so much of the 2nd Ed Elves I first played and loved.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-04, 11:43 AM
I figure that if the feats are any good, you should prioritize taking those over getting a +5% to hit. After all, it's not that hard to start with an 18 in your primary at level 1, and that should be enough to last you through the game.

I find it disappointing how few feats characters get, though; the decision for both 4E and PF was that players love feats so let's give them more. Over the scope of ten levels (and let's face it, most campaigns don't last longer than that) a 3E character gets four feats, PF gets five, 4E gives you six, and 5E nets you only two...

I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually got a book of optional micro feats that you can take and ECL 1, 2, and every even level after that.

Doug Lampert
2014-07-04, 11:44 AM
That's a ridiculous cap to hold themselves to - it will make converting high level monsters much harder. In 3e, an Iron Golem has 33 Str, a Balor and a Marut have 35, a Great Wyrm Black has 39, the Tarrasque has 45, and an Ancient Red has 39 - will they all have equal strength in 5e? (Will dragons past Ancient even exist?)

They want "bounded accuracy", which basically seems to mean that everything stays on the RNG of the random number generator at all levels. A PC's maximum DC is something like 19 (8 base, 6 proficiency, 5 attribute), his maximum attack is +11 (+14 with magic items, which are supposed to be optional and not needed). High attributes make monsters immune to even max level PCs.

Edited to add:

I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually got a book of optional micro feats that you can take and ECL 1, 2, and every even level after that.

I would be very surprised. A major alleged goal is to keep level 1 simple enough that a novice can basically just sit down and play.

You can train additional tool proficiencies and languages with time and GP. I'd expect hypothetical micro-feats to be trained the same way. Level 1 in this system is SUPPOSED to be useless and hardly trained at all, according to the designers that's a feature not a bug.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-04, 11:48 AM
That's a ridiculous cap to hold themselves to - it will make converting high level monsters much harder. In 3e, an Iron Golem has 33 Str, a Balor and a Marut have 35, a Great Wyrm Black has 39, the Tarrasque has 45, and an Ancient Red has 39 - will they all have equal strength in 5e? (Will dragons past Ancient even exist?)

Well, the design principle is that a halfling rogue should have a decent chance to bull rush the Tarrasque :smallamused:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-04, 11:51 AM
Well, the design principle is that a halfling rogue should have a decent chance to bull rush the Tarrasque :smallamused:

And why not? I like my non-casters being able to pull off high fantasy feats of awesomeness.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-04, 11:55 AM
Because if everyone can do it, then it's not awesome. I prefer my characters being able to pull off tricks that other people can't do.

Composer99
2014-07-04, 12:01 PM
Edited to add: Note that the MAIN damage scaling in 5th is from extra attacks, magic items are optional, attributes cap at +5. At level 20 the difference in total damage is over 8%. That's a noticeable change in effectiveness.


If the damage difference between the two weapons, all factors considered, is ~8% (how much "over" are we talking about?) at level 20 (which suggests a lower degree of difference at lower levels (*)), I'd say that makes my point, not yours. The greataxe is marginally weaker than the greatsword, and hence is neither "weak" nor "nearly uselessly weak". Especially when we have not yet seen what sort of feat, magic item, or special ability support they will have.

Also, since carrying capacity is Strength score x 15, I dare say most users of two-handed weapons (who are, after all, liable to be high-Strength melee types) aren't even going to notice the 1-pound weight difference, save perhaps in the most extraordinary corner cases.

It's not like I'm saying "everyone should go around wielding greataxes". What I'm saying is the difference is not significant enough to say "everyone should go around wielding greatswords and no one should go around wielding greataxes".

(*) If it was not your intent to imply this, please clarify; it's what I read from your comment.

Psyren
2014-07-04, 12:02 PM
Until we see the feats themselves we won't know if they are worth having such a tiny number. Maybe they scale with level and are the equivalent of 3-4 feats in 3.P combined.


Continuing my analysis with spell thoughts/changes:

- The Weave is apparently now a baseline concept in D&D (though not necessarily its stewardship by any one deity or entity.)

- Why don't the spell descriptions themselves tell you which list they're on anymore? Now I have to keep jumping back and forth between a spell and the lists to know if my caster gets that spell or not. Is this going to be the case in the PHB?

- What's with so many spells needing concentration now like Darkness, Suggestion, Blur, Blade Barrier, Web and Wall of Stone? Also, I'm not clear, does Concentration take an action? Do you need line of sight to the thing you're concentrating on? Do you need to be in range, or do you just have to idly think about something you left behind as you journey?

- Maintaining Concentration when damaged is a Constitution saving throw, which means clerics are now bad at it.

- Readying a spell now takes concentration too. If you do it while concentrating on another spell the first spell will immediately end/fail. If you are hit while readying a spell you may lose it.

- Some spells had their functionality changed in odd ways. Death Ward only blocks one death effect before ending. Dispel Magic automatically ends all spells of its level or lower on the target without needing a dispel check. Bless only affects 3 allies unless you heighten it (though it does at least affect all saving throws now.) Burning Hands and Fireball do a large amount of damage for their level. No stats are given for the free zombie you get from Finger of Death, and the damage is also pretty weak. The change to Freedom of Movement (not the duration) is so minor I wonder why they even bothered. The spells just seem a bit all over the place.

da_chicken
2014-07-04, 12:04 PM
There are now stat prereqs on both sides of multiclassing now, evidently.

I saw that, too. I say good. Die, buffet, die!

One thing I noticed is that the XP table would basically support 2e style multi-classing. You'd be 2-4 levels behind, but that's all. I'm wondering if it could be made to work, possibly by keeping stat requisites and proscribing class paths.

Psyren
2014-07-04, 12:09 PM
Not only are there prereqs to multiclass, doing so means giving up feats and ability score increases, so it's really a bad idea now. (You can't even dip Fighter for a feat anymore - they don't get one until 4th level!)

I prefer the PF approach of encouraging single class rather than punishing multiclassing. Carrot rather than stick.


I think the Human Variant of +1 to 2 Stats a Bonus Skill and a Free Feat at lvl 1 is going to cement the human in OPness for most things.

But honestly so far I am loving the Elves again in this Edition. They gained nothing really in 3.x. Now they remind me so much of the 2nd Ed Elves I first played and loved.

Elves got plenty of cool stuff in Pathfinder between FC bonuses, racial feats/spells and alternate racial traits. Using the Race Builder you could also build the more exotic elf varieties like Avariels and Sea Elves, and make them all LA 0.

Jeraa
2014-07-04, 12:15 PM
Burning Hands and Fireball do a large amount of damage for their level.

Its not just them. Cantrips did 1d4 damage in 3.X. The Ray of Frost cantrip in 5e deals 1d8 damage and reduces the targets speed by 10 ft for a round. The Firebolt cantrip deals 1d10 damage. Not to mention that cantrips damage scales with level, eventually reaching 4 dice of damage. Magic Missile gives 3 missiles that deal 1d4+1 damage each at 1st level. The Sunburst spell deals 12d6 damage, while the 3.5 version dealt 6d6. Meteor Swarm deals a total of 40d6 damage to a target (though the target only receives damage from 1 meteor, not multiple ones.)

All damaging spells seem to have been buffed. I'm not sure I like it at first level, but it sure makes blasting a better alternative in 5e than it was in 3.X.

Callin
2014-07-04, 12:15 PM
Elves got plenty of cool stuff in Pathfinder between FC bonuses, racial feats/spells and alternate racial traits. Using the Race Builder you could also build the more exotic elf varieties like Avariels and Sea Elves, and make them all LA 0.

Yes in Pathfinder not in Dungeons and Dragons. Not saying Pathfinder is bad (in the least, I enjoy my Pathfinder game) , but it dont have Dungeons and Dragons on the Cover so its a psychological thing I guess haha.

Composer99
2014-07-04, 12:15 PM
Until we see the feats themselves we won't know if they are worth having such a tiny number. Maybe they scale with level and are the equivalent of 3-4 feats in 3.P combined.


Continuing my analysis with spell thoughts/changes:

- The Weave is apparently now a baseline concept in D&D (though not necessarily its stewardship by any one deity or entity.)

- Why don't the spell descriptions themselves tell you which list they're on anymore? Now I have to keep jumping back and forth between a spell and the lists to know if my caster gets that spell or not. Is this going to be the case in the PHB?

- What's with so many spells needing concentration now like Darkness, Suggestion, Blur, Blade Barrier, Web and Wall of Stone? Also, I'm not clear, does Concentration take an action? Do you need line of sight to the thing you're concentrating on? Do you need to be in range, or do you just have to idly think about something you left behind as you journey?

- Maintaining Concentration when damaged is a Constitution saving throw, which means clerics are now bad at it.

- Readying a spell now takes concentration too. If you do it while concentrating on another spell the first spell will immediately end/fail. If you are hit while readying a spell you may lose it.

- Some spells had their functionality changed in odd ways. Death Ward only blocks one death effect before ending. Dispel Magic automatically ends all spells of its level or lower on the target without needing a dispel check. Bless only affects 3 allies unless you heighten it (though it does at least affect all saving throws now.) Burning Hands and Fireball do a large amount of damage for their level. No stats are given for the free zombie you get from Finger of Death, and the damage is also pretty weak. The change to Freedom of Movement (not the duration) is so minor I wonder why they even bothered. The spells just seem a bit all over the place.

Concentration does not use an action. IIRC each spell with the "Concentration" duration also specifies a maximum duration (e.g. arcane eye is "Concentration, up to 1 hour"), and it appears range is not a problem for enduring effects if they are not explicitly called out as traveling with you. The Range entry in Chapter 10 indicates: "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range unless the spell's description says otherwise", so you could, say, cast a blade barrier spell and walk away, concentrating, and keep it up until it hits the upper cap of 10 minutes. But you can't keep the blade barrier up if you want to use bless because you got in a fight during those 10 minutes.

Doug Lampert
2014-07-04, 12:16 PM
If the damage difference between the two weapons, all factors considered, is ~8% (how much "over" are we talking about?) at level 20 (which suggests a lower degree of difference at lower levels (*)), I'd say that makes my point, not yours. The greataxe is marginally weaker than the greatsword, and hence is neither "weak" nor "nearly uselessly weak". Especially when we have not yet seen what sort of feat, magic item, or special ability support they will have.

Also, since carrying capacity is Strength score x 15, I dare say most users of two-handed weapons (who are, after all, liable to be high-Strength melee types) aren't even going to notice the 1-pound weight difference, save perhaps in the most extraordinary corner cases.

It's not like I'm saying "everyone should go around wielding greataxes". What I'm saying is the difference is not significant enough to say "everyone should go around wielding greatswords and no one should go around wielding greataxes".

(*) If it was not your intent to imply this, please clarify; it's what I read from your comment.

No, level 20 is where the difference is LOWEST because I can assume an ability of 20. The difference is greater at low levels where the ability score is lower. The total damage difference is greatest at level 20 where it can easily average 7-9 points a round, but percentage wise it's minimized.

How much over 8% depends on what percentage of hits are crits, it's 8.1% for a normal hit and a hair over 10% for a critical hit.

Damage done increasing by 8% total isn't that much less than the difference between a cantrip only wizard and a fighter. It really is a big deal.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-04, 12:18 PM
No, level 20 is where the difference is LOWEST because I can assume an ability of 20.

If you roll for stats and use a +2 race (such as dwarven fighters), you can assume a 56% chance of having a 20 by level four, and a 10% chance of having it by level one. It's pretty easy to hit the cap.

Doug Lampert
2014-07-04, 12:19 PM
Readying a spell now takes concentration too. If you do it while concentrating on another spell the first spell will immediately end/fail.

So? You ready spells in combat? I cast them. The ready action is hardly ever going to be used on a spell by a buffer. Cast the concentration spell, then cast cantrips while concentrating.

Doug Lampert
2014-07-04, 12:20 PM
If you roll for stats and use a +2 race (such as dwarven fighters), you can assume a 56% chance of having a 20 by level four, and a 10% chance of having it by level one. It's pretty easy to hit the cap.

In which case the lower level fighter ALSO gets the difference down to 8-10% of his total damage done.

Edited to add:
Great weapon adds less to damage with any given weapon than greataxe => greatsword adds for the great weapon fighter.

Weapon styles are being claimed to be a big deal, getting an extra is the thing people like most about the champion build. Changing weapons is a bigger deal than that and there's simply no downside.

Psyren
2014-07-04, 12:45 PM
Its not just them. Cantrips did 1d4 damage in 3.X. The Ray of Frost cantrip in 5e deals 1d8 damage and reduces the targets speed by 10 ft for a round. The Firebolt cantrip deals 1d10 damage. Not to mention that cantrips damage scales with level, eventually reaching 4 dice of damage. Magic Missile gives 3 missiles that deal 1d4+1 damage each at 1st level. The Sunburst spell deals 12d6 damage, while the 3.5 version dealt 6d6. Meteor Swarm deals a total of 40d6 damage to a target (though the target only receives damage from 1 meteor, not multiple ones.)

All damaging spells seem to have been buffed. I'm not sure I like it at first level, but it sure makes blasting a better alternative in 5e than it was in 3.X.

And apparently you can Overchannel cantrips for free as written, as many times as you like, without any drawback.


So? You ready spells in combat? I cast them. The ready action is hardly ever going to be used on a spell by a buffer. Cast the concentration spell, then cast cantrips while concentrating.

Actually it might be even more valuable to ready a spell (say, Dimension Door, if anything comes in melee range) and cast spam cantrips in the meantime.

Of course, the problem with readying a spell in 5e is that you cast it. Whereas in 3e you would simply prepare to cast it, if the trigger that you specify never happens you still wasted the spell.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-04, 12:49 PM
Because if everyone can do it, then it's not awesome. I prefer my characters being able to pull off tricks that other people can't do.

Who says everyone can do it? I'm not talking about everyone. A level 20 commoner can't do it but a hero, the few special in the world, should be able to pull of high fantasy. Hey that halfling rogue isn't allowed to push a Tarrasque but I'm sure a hafling wizard could eventually cast a spell to push that tarrasque :smallannoyed:

Or is it because it is a halfling? What does race or size have to do with what a fantasy hero should be able to do?

A halfling with 20 strength should be just as strong as a human, orc, or whatever else with 20 strength. This is why I hate size modifiers or limiting what you can do based on size. The ability scores already take everything you need into account. If a Halfling with 25 strength (magic item) goes up against a huge monster with 28 strength then that halfling should be able to do anything that huge creature can do with regards to strength.

By saying that a Huge (or whatever size) creature can't be pushed by a smaller creature you are saying Strength X doesn't equal Strength X ONLY because one creature happens to be bigger than the other. Which makes no sense in or out of game.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-04, 12:55 PM
Who says everyone can do it?

The rules do. That's the whole point of BA, after all.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-04, 01:06 PM
The rules do. That's the whole point of BA, after all.

:smallsigh: Well when that commoner walks up to the Terrasque and doesn't die from whatever ability the Terrasque will have and then gets to use their action to Shove the monster... Then yeah everyone can do it. :smallsigh:

Psyren
2014-07-04, 01:07 PM
I think we're actually on the same side here. I'm fine with Halfling barbarians that can benchpress Great Wyrm dragons.

The problem is that in 5e that isn't possible simply because the max Str for a PC, ever, is somewhere between 20-24 after magic. The max for monsters is 30 and we don't even know if items or buffs can raise that further yet.

In 3.5/PF there is no limit. And in PF, there are also no hard caps based on size - a Halfling or even a Pixie with 60 Str can in fact grapple or bull rush the Tarrasque.

I just think the caps are arbitrary.

da_chicken
2014-07-04, 01:23 PM
I think we're actually on the same side here. I'm fine with Halfling barbarians that can benchpress Great Wyrm dragons.

The problem is that in 5e that isn't possible simply because the max Str for a PC, ever, is somewhere between 20-24 after magic. The max for monsters is 30 and we don't even know if items or buffs can raise that further yet.

In 3.5/PF there is no limit. And in PF, there are also no hard caps based on size - a Halfling or even a Pixie with 60 Str can in fact grapple or bull rush the Tarrasque.

I just think the caps are arbitrary.

Well, in the playtest, the Girdle of Storm Giant Strength does grant Str 29 to the bearer. Sure, it's classified as an Artifact, but the one that grants Str 27 is just Very Rare.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-04, 01:37 PM
I think we're actually on the same side here. I'm fine with Halfling barbarians that can benchpress Great Wyrm dragons.

I'm also fine with a very strong halfling rogue to bull rush the Tarrasque. What I have a problem with is that every halfling in the game has the ability to bull rush the Tarrasque. In the former case, it works because your character is awesome; in the latter case, it works because Big T is a wimp.

Psyren
2014-07-04, 01:49 PM
Well, in the playtest, the Girdle of Storm Giant Strength does grant Str 29 to the bearer. Sure, it's classified as an Artifact, but the one that grants Str 27 is just Very Rare.

Wow, an artifact makes me almost as strong as a golem! Or whatever else they put at 30. :smallsigh:


I'm also fine with a very strong halfling rogue to bull rush the Tarrasque. What I have a problem with is that every halfling in the game has the ability to bull rush the Tarrasque. In the former case, it works because your character is awesome; in the latter case, it works because Big T is a wimp.

Agreed - anybody can hit the cap. And if the feats end up sucking, they might as well cap every stat!

Callin
2014-07-04, 01:55 PM
A 6ft tall character can reach a 32ft ledge with a running jump??? wowzers

edit: with a Str of 20. I forgot to add that.

obryn
2014-07-04, 02:05 PM
I find it disappointing how few feats characters get, though; the decision for both 4E and PF was that players love feats so let's give them more. Over the scope of ten levels (and let's face it, most campaigns don't last longer than that) a 3E character gets four feats, PF gets five, 4E gives you six, and 5E nets you only two...
Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, feats are the worst and bloatiest part of both 3e and 4e. I'm 100% on board with them getting better and less frequent, and I'm thrilled you no longer need to screw around with them at 1st level. This is IMO the best part of 5e's design


And apparently you can Overchannel cantrips for free as written, as many times as you like, without any drawback.
Hmmm, I'm sure they're intended to be counted as 1st level... How funny.

Note also that the 6th level feature does nothing as written; it needs to note attack rolls.

captpike
2014-07-04, 02:11 PM
Thank you. I know a lot of people are overly concerned with making sure that all the classes are balanced against each other, but as long as each class is capable of contributing to an encounter then I don't see the problem (liner fighter quadratic wizard aside).





balance is what makes sure everyone CAN make a difference. that is why 3e is no balanced. a 20th level fighter can't make a difference, a 20th wizard can.

----
I see they have not learned their lesson about not making fighters boring, I wonder how many people are going to pick up the PHB, skim to the fighter section see that you can't do anything cool then put it down.

Psyren
2014-07-04, 02:18 PM
balance is what makes sure everyone CAN make a difference. that is why 3e is no balanced. a 20th level fighter can't make a difference, a 20th wizard can.

You need to define "make a difference." If "making a difference" means killing the dragon that is terrorizing the village, both the 20th level Fighter and the 20th level Wizard can do that. The Fighter may only be able to do it 2 ways compared to the wizard's 200 ways, but the end result is that the dragon is dead.



I see they have not learned their lesson about not making fighters boring, I wonder how many people are going to pick up the PHB, skim to the fighter section see that you can't do anything cool then put it down.

They can do something cool (action surge.) My worry is that people will skim to the fighter section, say "wow, that's cool!" then put 2 levels of fighter in every build. Especially now that caster level isn't really a thing anymore.

nocker
2014-07-04, 03:11 PM
You need to define "make a difference." If "making a difference" means killing the dragon that is terrorizing the village, both the 20th level Fighter and the 20th level Wizard can do that. The Fighter may only be able to do it 2 ways compared to the wizard's 200 ways, but the end result is that the dragon is dead.

The problem is that "killing the dragon that's terrorizing the village" is a 4th level adventure concept. 4E (and videogames) got people used to a threadmill where every adventure is a form of "obtain item X" or "kill monster Y", possibly with a "go to place Z" before.

But the game's blurb keep selling us that near-epic characters need to have adventurers where "the destiny of the world is at risk". If the DM actually wants to do what the box promises and design a 20th level adventure where, for example, apocalypse is coming and the entire planet's population needs to be moved to a new home, or a mysterious plague is destroying newborn people souls, or whatever, then the 20th level Wizard can in fact be a major player there, while the 20th fighter will be at best an accessory.

da_chicken
2014-07-04, 03:20 PM
Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, feats are the worst and bloatiest part of both 3e and 4e. I'm 100% on board with them getting better and less frequent, and I'm thrilled you no longer need to screw around with them at 1st level. This is IMO the best part of 5e's design

I agree. Endless lists of feats were not fun. In the end, they usually just gave you even more fiddly +2 bonuses, which is just what they're trying to avoid. I like bigger, meatier feats.


Hmmm, I'm sure they're intended to be counted as 1st level... How funny.

Note also that the 6th level feature does nothing as written; it needs to note attack rolls.

I would probably rule Overpower treats cantrips as level 1 even though cantrips explicitly have a spell level of 0, but even if you don't it's not that good.

Remember the optimized greatsword Fighter with Str 20 and no magic does 9.5 damage per attack @ 65% hit rate and 10% crit rate, so three attacks were 28.5? Well, firebolt maximized deals 35 damage, or 65 on a crit (assuming that gets maximized, too). There's no Potent Cantrip now, so that's 35 * 0.60 + 65 * 0.05 = 24.25. Sure, that's like +10 average damage, but it's still less than a Fighter. Even with Potent Cantrip, we're looking at 35 * 0.60 + 65 * 0.05 + 17.5 * 0.35 = 30.4. +2 damage over the Fighter, and the Fighter picks up +5% crit at level 15 which will further close the gap to about +1 damage.

Sartharina
2014-07-04, 03:22 PM
My problem with the fighter class is that it's still stuck in OD&D/AD&D design of "Ninth level is peak of ability", but then stretched that out.

The game would be much better if the class was designed to be 9-12 levels long instead of 20.

Felhammer
2014-07-04, 03:33 PM
They can do something cool (action surge.) My worry is that people will skim to the fighter section, say "wow, that's cool!" then put 2 levels of fighter in every build. Especially now that caster level isn't really a thing anymore.

DMs could just say "no cherry picking" if that becomes a problem.

Psyren
2014-07-04, 03:50 PM
I agree. Endless lists of feats were not fun. In the end, they usually just gave you even more fiddly +2 bonuses, which is just what they're trying to avoid. I like bigger, meatier feats.

And that's admirable. Now let's see what we actually get.


The problem is that "killing the dragon that's terrorizing the village" is a 4th level adventure concept. 4E (and videogames) got people used to a threadmill where every adventure is a form of "obtain item X" or "kill monster Y", possibly with a "go to place Z" before.

Pretty sure dragons go way above 4th level, are capable of fielding armies of minions and constructing entire dungeons. No concept is married inextricably to a given level range if you don't want it to be.


DMs could just say "no cherry picking" if that becomes a problem.

The dread spectre of Oberoni continues to haunt us to this day it seems...

Sartharina
2014-07-04, 03:56 PM
The dread spectre of Oberoni continues to haunt us to this day it seems...Rules in TTRPGs are guidelines, not absolutes. A rule that is satisfying 80% of the time but is easily broken/abused is better than a rule that can't be broken/abused but is only satisfying 10% of the time.

da_chicken
2014-07-04, 04:10 PM
Wow, an artifact makes me almost as strong as a golem! Or whatever else they put at 30. :smallsigh:

Looking at the playtest, there is one creature with a 30, it's a demon prince and this is his Cha score. Next is (of course) Storm Giant at Str 29, Cloud Giant at Str 27, and then Balor and Pit Fiend at Str 26 (those were Str 39, Str 35, Str 35 and Str 37 relatively in 3.5). A Stone Golem is only Str 24. I think it's pretty clear that Str 29 is obscenely stong in 5e.

They may have rebalanced things, but any score over 20 is very difficult to achieve for Str, and all but impossible for the other stats (+1 ioun stones exist, but that's it).

Psyren
2014-07-04, 04:24 PM
^ Then I assume the Tarrasque (who has been in every edition so far) will be a whopping 1 strength higher than a Storm Giant. So all we need to beat him are two Storm Giants wrestling him to the ground. Huzzah!


Rules in TTRPGs are guidelines, not absolutes. A rule that is satisfying 80% of the time but is easily broken/abused is better than a rule that can't be broken/abused but is only satisfying 10% of the time.

The whole point of the books is to be well-written enough that they avoid as many of these issues up front as possible. Now, I'm not saying that Action Surge is broken, but I'm compelled to ask - what is it meant to represent? It seems that in terms of flavor it's a way for a fighter to dig deep and pull off a very complicated attack sequence in a pinch. I doubt they intended for it to help Wizards violate physics even more by casting back to back spells (words, gestures, materials and all) in less than 6 seconds, but currently that's what it does.

Arzanyos
2014-07-04, 04:50 PM
^ Then I assume the Tarrasque (who has been in every edition so far) will be a whopping 1 strength higher than a Storm Giant. So all we need to beat him are two Storm Giants wrestling him to the ground. Huzzah!



The whole point of the books is to be well-written enough that they avoid as many of these issues up front as possible. Now, I'm not saying that Action Surge is broken, but I'm compelled to ask - what is it meant to represent? It seems that in terms of flavor it's a way for a fighter to dig deep and pull off a very complicated attack sequence in a pinch. I doubt they intended for it to help Wizards violate physics even more by casting back to back spells (words, gestures, materials and all) in less than 6 seconds, but currently that's what it does.

Well, I thought action surge was one of those features that the multiclassing rules would call out specifically. they said some features would have special multi-classed rules.

Sartharina
2014-07-04, 05:17 PM
^ Then I assume the Tarrasque (who has been in every edition so far) will be a whopping 1 strength higher than a Storm Giant. So all we need to beat him are two Storm Giants wrestling him to the ground. Huzzah!While Storm Giants may be about as strong as the Tarrasque in terms of raw muscle power, they do not have the rending claws, nigh invulnerability, spiked and bladed carapace, sheer ferocity, deadly cunning/accuracy, and raw bulk, among any other things D&D's most famous Kaiju might have in addition to its impressive strength.

Ability scores are not the be-all and end-all of the threat a creature poses.

Anyway, here's the theme for "Two Storm Giants vs. Tarrasque" battle. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH_6iFYiryY)

metaridley18
2014-07-04, 05:25 PM
The whole point of the books is to be well-written enough that they avoid as many of these issues up front as possible. Now, I'm not saying that Action Surge is broken, but I'm compelled to ask - what is it meant to represent? It seems that in terms of flavor it's a way for a fighter to dig deep and pull off a very complicated attack sequence in a pinch. I doubt they intended for it to help Wizards violate physics even more by casting back to back spells (words, gestures, materials and all) in less than 6 seconds, but currently that's what it does.

Depending on how you read the section on Bonus Actions and spells, wizards cannot cast more than 1 spell and 1 cantrip in the same turn, no matter what other features come up. I can see the reading that it only applies to spells with a Bonus Action cast time, but as a DM, I'm going to logically extend this to 1 spell, 1 cantrip per turn, period.




Bonus Action
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You
must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell,
provided that you havenít already taken a bonus action
this turn. You canít cast another spell during the same
turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

captpike
2014-07-04, 05:37 PM
My problem with the fighter class is that it's still stuck in OD&D/AD&D design of "Ninth level is peak of ability", but then stretched that out.

The game would be much better if the class was designed to be 9-12 levels long instead of 20.

if they can't make 20 good levels with each one having at least one good choice to make they should not be making the game.

Sartharina
2014-07-04, 05:45 PM
if they can't make 20 good levels with each one having at least one good choice to make they should not be making the game.They have good choices over 20 levels, but the pacing is bad. My post was largely a response to seeing the gimply regeneration Champions get coming online at level 18 instead of Name Level.

da_chicken
2014-07-04, 05:45 PM
Anyway, here's the theme for "Two Storm Giants vs. Tarrasque" battle. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH_6iFYiryY)

Oh, I guessed wrong! (http://youtu.be/XqRk6wBfOLc)

T.G. Oskar
2014-07-04, 06:08 PM
The weapons table is anything but interesting - it could be reduced to one third of its size while giving players exactly as much, or more, freedom in choosing their weapon. Weapon Finesse is integrated, yes, but the list of weapons you can use with finesse is still short. And crossbows are still useless.

For once, it's somewhat smaller than before. Note that there's no "exotic" weaponry: only simple and martial.

Second, there's some BIG changes. Handaxes, Javelins, Light Hammers and Shortbows are now Simple Weapons: Clerics and Rogues have free access to them. With the Handaxe, there's two Simple Slashing weapon choices now (compared to one in 3.5). Since you can also TWF without penalties (you could do it in 3.5, but at a -10/-6 penalty; here, it only takes a bonus action, which is somewhat more difficult to get but at least it's not an attack that's pretty much meant to fail), you get a fair amount of light weapon choices that apply. The amount of polearms was reduced (6 in 5e compared to about 9 in 3.5, because there's no more Guisarme or Ranseur, and the three spear types were collapsed into two). Hand Crossbows are now Martial, the Maul was added into the game from the start (and it's the only other weapon that has the same damage ratio than the Greatsword: I'm sure someone here would have noticed...). The "lack" of finessable weapons seems mostly artificial: with reduced weaponry, you get mostly the weapons that were traditionally light as finessable weapons. Sure, there are some finessable weapons that no longer are (Handaxe, Light Hammer, Sickle), but for the most part the choice is pretty solid (Dagger, Dart, Rapier, Scimitar, Shortsword, Whip).

Third: they removed the 1.5x Strength bonus with two-handers. That's something I'm sure I'll miss, but the two-handed weapons already do quite a bit of damage. That doesn't make versatile weapons any less interesting than before: battleaxes and longswords are viable choices. Think about it: the humble longsword held in two hands couldn't compare to the greatsword because, despite the same strength, the difference between them was 5 points of damage (or more) for every two blows. Now, the difference is about 3 points per 2 blows: it's less than before. The difference is more notable if you check the longsword with 1 hand to the greatsword with 2: the difference is the same as if you held the longsword in 2 hands before, rather than 5 + Str modifier per two blows (a considerable change). You can wield anything else in that off-hand: a shield (for slightly better AC, and with bounded accuracy that should matter more now), a throwing weapon (meaning you can attack from a distance and up close), or maybe a magic item that works like a rod (or a wand, if you're a Rogue).

The thing is: the weapons list is not by all means perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. It's certainly not the immense reduction from DA RPG (you get 3 weapons per weapon group, and there's about 7-9 weapon groups total), but there's more variety in terms of what each weapon can do in D&D 5e than what it does in DA RPG. That also means it's less bloated than the choices in 3.5 and PF as well. It needs some fine-tweaking (allowing a finessable bludgeoning weapon, returning the bludgeoning/piercing property to the Morningstar, differencing the Halberd from the Glaive), but it's definitely a fair change. It's just that some weapons STILL have that much traction.


I find it disappointing how few feats characters get, though; the decision for both 4E and PF was that players love feats so let's give them more. Over the scope of ten levels (and let's face it, most campaigns don't last longer than that) a 3E character gets four feats, PF gets five, 4E gives you six, and 5E nets you only two...

It's not the quantity of the feats, but the quality. PF is a good example of that: barring some choices (Dazing Assault being a personal favorite I wouldn't doubt adding into 3.5, for example), some of the choices of the developers make you feel as if you never have enough feats. Having those feats that were split-up reunited in PF, a Fighter could get enough feats to fully specialize in one thing and still delve fairly well into another fighting style, or add to its defense, or something else. 3.5 was the source of the problem, though, with requiring 4 feats to get what was optional in earlier editions.

It all depends on the quality of 5e feats, and given what they sacrifice (an ability score advancement, something that in most games is a given), the bar is set up pretty high. I'd love to have more feats and the same ability score advancement, but if the feats are gonna be like 3.5/PF, where I need like 3 feats to merely BEGIN in the fighting style, 2 more feats to make it decent and nearly all 7/10 feats to be GOOD at it, then it's as if I didn't have enough feats.


Until we see the feats themselves we won't know if they are worth having such a tiny number. Maybe they scale with level and are the equivalent of 3-4 feats in 3.P combined.

Wishful thinking, but couldn't have said it better. It's still too early, but if they're good enough, then it'll matter.


Continuing my analysis with spell thoughts/changes:

[...]

- What's with so many spells needing concentration now like Darkness, Suggestion, Blur, Blade Barrier, Web and Wall of Stone? Also, I'm not clear, does Concentration take an action? Do you need line of sight to the thing you're concentrating on? Do you need to be in range, or do you just have to idly think about something you left behind as you journey?

- Maintaining Concentration when damaged is a Constitution saving throw, which means clerics are now bad at it.

- Readying a spell now takes concentration too. If you do it while concentrating on another spell the first spell will immediately end/fail. If you are hit while readying a spell you may lose it.

- Some spells had their functionality changed in odd ways. Death Ward only blocks one death effect before ending. Dispel Magic automatically ends all spells of its level or lower on the target without needing a dispel check. Bless only affects 3 allies unless you heighten it (though it does at least affect all saving throws now.) Burning Hands and Fireball do a large amount of damage for their level. No stats are given for the free zombie you get from Finger of Death, and the damage is also pretty weak. The change to Freedom of Movement (not the duration) is so minor I wonder why they even bothered. The spells just seem a bit all over the place.

I know someone else mentioned it, but Concentration apparently doesn't take an action. It's harder to explain, but it works somewhat like sustaining a spell in Shadowrun, except that you can only have one spell sustained at a time (instead of a -2 to your dice pool for every action). Sustaining a spell takes no action, but attempting to sustain more than one spell isn't really possible. In 5e that seems to be the case. This is a fair restraint to caster's power, though not enough IMO. Time Stop is still broken, and I shudder at seeing Web: it's as powerful, if not MORE powerful, than before.

As for Concentration...last I recall, PF would have worked along those lines, if it weren't because you added your CL to the concentration check. Between CL, CL boosters and high Constitution, you could stop worrying from concentration checks by 10th level at most, if not 7th. That means anyone has an easier chance to disrupt your concentration on a spell, particularly one that further improves your defenses or makes you harder to get. Also: it's not like the DC is THAT high: DC 10 or half your damage, so you'd need to deal over 20 points of damage to increase the DC of the check. Without Constitution, that's 50% chance of failing the spell.

It's still early to measure the differences (whether Basic or Core), but anything that restrains spellcasters is good for me. Sure, that means it'll also harm the Paladin and the Ranger, but at least they're still good enough at combat to matter.


Not only are there prereqs to multiclass, doing so means giving up feats and ability score increases, so it's really a bad idea now. (You can't even dip Fighter for a feat anymore - they don't get one until 4th level!)

I prefer the PF approach of encouraging single class rather than punishing multiclassing. Carrot rather than stick.

Actually, PF both encourages single class and punishes multiclass. So it's both carrot AND stick.

Prestige classes are a great example of that. Even without the effort to fill those dead levels in the core/base classes, taking a PrC isn't really that great. Archetypes pretty much erased the need for multiclassing: you can get through an archetype traits of another class without ever shifting into that class, so the only reason you multiclass is because the other class has something you desperately lack...but then you don't get it at the same strength, and you just reduced what good stuff you had before.

That doesn't mean you can't multiclass OR that it's not effective at all, but the instances of it are so minor they can be counted with the fingers of both hands. Some are even effectively replaced by base classes (Eldritch Knight compared to the Magus, for example). Others provide a different focus on the specific class (an Inquisitor entering Gray Warden, where you get pretty much everything an Inquisitor would have gained and the actual losses are fairly compensated with the gains). Multiclassing also kills your favored class bonus: it's a boon if you stay single-classed, but sometimes the loss is so great that it also punishes your build if you even choose to change.


Elves got plenty of cool stuff in Pathfinder between FC bonuses, racial feats/spells and alternate racial traits. Using the Race Builder you could also build the more exotic elf varieties like Avariels and Sea Elves, and make them all LA 0.

The FC bonuses other than extra HP/extra skill points aren't really that great. Unless you're a spellcaster, in which case...why get something great for a class that already has great stuff? It's not something I'd lean on, in any case, particularly if you have plans on multiclassing.

Racial feats? Didn't 3.5 also had them? Maybe they weren't THAT great (compared to, say, Able Learner), but Elves had a handful of racial feats. If you were from Eberron or the Forgotten Realms, you had even more racial feats, based on your kind of elf. So yeah: racial feats are not exclusive from PF. That said: most classes are feat-starved EVEN in PF, so they might not have the chance to apply racial feats to their list unless they're that darn good. The racial feats for the most part are as good as their 3.5 counterparts, so make of that what you will.

The racial spells are somewhat unique, but it's not something I'd definitely lean on. You get 2-3 spells per race most of the time. And the Elven-specific spells aren't so great (a +4 bonus to Stealth checks with the same effect as Invisibility, a +4 insight bonus on a Knowledge check related to the area, and Ward of the Season being the best of the trio).

The alternate racial traits...the 5e Elf has some of them. I mean: they have Darkvision AND Low-Light Vision for free, whereas in PF you have to replace one for the other. The others are pretty minor, and when compared to the flexibility of the 5e High Elf's free cantrip, hard to beat.

Just by looking at what was freely released a day ago, the 5e Elf seems pretty impressive. It has exactly the same stuff it has as a legacy, but the Subrace benefits are actually good. If the 5e Elf in the version 0.1 (or 1.0?) is comparable to the PF Elf race with a race-specific splat thrown in, I would consider just how much the change goes.

One final thing: I'm not a fan of the ARG's point-based system to construct races. I have no qualms when it's a purely point-based system like GURPS or Shadowrun (and even the latter in its 4th edition made it package-based). Even the Storyteller System has it as templates rather than point-based choices.


I think we're actually on the same side here. I'm fine with Halfling barbarians that can benchpress Great Wyrm dragons.

The problem is that in 5e that isn't possible simply because the max Str for a PC, ever, is somewhere between 20-24 after magic. The max for monsters is 30 and we don't even know if items or buffs can raise that further yet.

In 3.5/PF there is no limit. And in PF, there are also no hard caps based on size - a Halfling or even a Pixie with 60 Str can in fact grapple or bull rush the Tarrasque.

I just think the caps are arbitrary.

Hmm...I think you're coloring your opinion a bit TOO much towards PF preferences. Last I know, both Bull Rush AND Grapple have hard caps. Let's see...


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Bull-Rush]You[/url] can only bull rush an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you.

As for Grapple...


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Grapple]As[/url] a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a Ė4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition. If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails). Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).

So no and yes. You can't, as a Halfling Barbarian, bull rush the Tarrasque (there's 5 size differences between one and the other), but nothing in the rule says you can't grapple the Tarrasque, so you actually CAN grapple it. Not even Rage Powers allow to ignore the Bull Rush restriction, so general rules apply here.

The way Shove works here, though, is extremely simple. As melee attack, make Strength (Athletics) vs. Strength (Athletics)/Dexterity (Acrobatics) test. You succeed, you either knock someone prone or move it 5 ft. away. Same thing for Grapple: for once, these are the simplest grapple rules I've seen. Only problem is that you can't grapple the Big T here, since it must be one size category larger or less (same as with Bull Rush/Trip in PF). There's no size modifiers or penalties other than Small characters have trouble wielding Heavy Weapons.

Without knowing the benefits based on size, you *could* easily "Bull Rush" or Knock Prone a large creature just by having enough Strength, particularly if you can add the proficiency bonus to it. A 1st level Halfling Fighter with Athletics and Strength 16 would easily have a +5 to that roll, whereas a 20th level Halfling Fighter with Strength 20 would have a +11 to that roll. Without Size Penalties, and assuming the monster only has Strength 30, that'd be a +1 to the roll, which is small but noticeable considering the Halfling Fighter will have 3 more tries because of Extra Attack.

Again, it's still too early, but what's seen so far is surprisingly effective. I mean: against a Nothic? A Halfling Fighter 2 (mostly the same as a Fighter 1) will have 2 points over the Nothic's bonus. Against an Ogre, it still gets a +1. That goes without mentioning what magic items can do for those rolls.

BTW: noticed something interesting... Weapon Size Increases will remain, if the damage difference between a Large Greatclub and a Medium-sized Greatclub are to be noticed. However, it seems that the increase is mostly adding one more die per size (Greatclub went from 1d8 to 2d8; Javelin went from 1d6 to 2d6). Food for thought...particularly given that the Basic Rules apparently allow Small characters to wield weapons with the same prowess as Medium characters instead of reducing their sizes...

Zweisteine
2014-07-04, 11:37 PM
They can do something cool (action surge.) My worry is that people will skim to the fighter section, say "wow, that's cool!" then put 2 levels of fighter in every build. Especially now that caster level isn't really a thing anymore.
But now you need high strength to become a fighter (even an archer).

I would make his the prereq for fighter: Str 15 OR Str 13 and Con 13 OR Dex 15


As for ability caps... I see what the intent is, and it's not so bad. What bothers me is that it's always the same. A dwarf with +2 strength to start has the same cap as an elf. I think that racial bonuses should be factored in to the ability cap, because, when both are trained to equal degrees, that dwarf should always be stronger than that elf. I'd say each 1-2 points of racial bonus increases the cap by two (i.e. racial bonus +1 or +2 gives +2 cap, racial bonus +3 or +4 gives +4 cap, etc).

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-04, 11:45 PM
I still think that each class should become a subclass for each other class.

That way you can regulate what the classes get without dipping and losing out to much on your main class.

Or feat based multiclassing, but make it better than 4e.

Sartharina
2014-07-04, 11:49 PM
I still think that each class should become a subclass for each other class.

That way you can regulate what the classes get without dipping and losing out to much on your main class.

Or feat based multiclassing, but make it better than 4e. This is an approach I'd like to see as well, and handles multiclassing better than the 3.X buffet/waste of levels issue.

Spuddles
2014-07-05, 05:01 AM
Is Asmodeus still a chump who doesnt know who Mestopholes is or gets diplomanced by a level 1 paladin?

Cause I saw some pretty hilarious stuff on /tg/

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/24303985/

Morty
2014-07-05, 05:29 AM
Second, there's some BIG changes.

Hate to break it to you, but the word here isn't 'big'. 'Cosmetic' is more like it. It's the same outdated table with an illusion of choice, only with some numbers shuffled around.


Handaxes, Javelins, Light Hammers and Shortbows are now Simple Weapons: Clerics and Rogues have free access to them. With the Handaxe, there's two Simple Slashing weapon choices now (compared to one in 3.5).

Yeah, with the handaxe being strictly superior to the sickle... for some reason. I'm also not sure what possessed them to make light weapons not finesse-able without a separate tag. Who knows, though - maybe they'll make damage types relevant this time around.


Hand Crossbows are now Martial, the Maul was added into the game from the start (and it's the only other weapon that has the same damage ratio than the Greatsword: I'm sure someone here would have noticed...).

Hand crossbows being martial is irrelevant - crossbows are still useless.


The "lack" of finessable weapons seems mostly artificial: with reduced weaponry, you get mostly the weapons that were traditionally light as finessable weapons. Sure, there are some finessable weapons that no longer are (Handaxe, Light Hammer, Sickle), but for the most part the choice is pretty solid (Dagger, Dart, Rapier, Scimitar, Shortsword, Whip).

Quite. And the selection of finesse-able weapons has been 'traditionally' laughable. So it's still laughable this time around. In the earliest playtests, it seemed that they had the intention of expanding it - they even made katanas finesse-able. Which is better than nothing - I could have a fighter use it and pretend it's a longsword. But of course, it was not to be. Wasn't iconic enough, I suppose.


Third: they removed the 1.5x Strength bonus with two-handers. That's something I'm sure I'll miss, but the two-handed weapons already do quite a bit of damage. That doesn't make versatile weapons any less interesting than before: battleaxes and longswords are viable choices. Think about it: the humble longsword held in two hands couldn't compare to the greatsword because, despite the same strength, the difference between them was 5 points of damage (or more) for every two blows. Now, the difference is about 3 points per 2 blows: it's less than before. The difference is more notable if you check the longsword with 1 hand to the greatsword with 2: the difference is the same as if you held the longsword in 2 hands before, rather than 5 + Str modifier per two blows (a considerable change). You can wield anything else in that off-hand: a shield (for slightly better AC, and with bounded accuracy that should matter more now), a throwing weapon (meaning you can attack from a distance and up close), or maybe a magic item that works like a rod (or a wand, if you're a Rogue).

Since when does 'slightly less inferior than before' equal 'viable'? Seriously. Wielding anything but a greatsword or greataxe in two hands is still pointless. The 'versatile' property is effectively worthless. Even if you're small-sized, you're probably better off with a shield or something else in your off-hand instead of getting a whopping two potential points of damage.


The thing is: the weapons list is not by all means perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

So how many years and editions is it going to take before they finally get it right? They've been using the same weapons table for at least ten years, you'd think this step in the right direction would have taken them a little less time.

Bottom line: the weapons table as it is could be collapsed into several lines of text and give the players exactly the same amount of choice. Like I said: have all light weapons deal 1d6 damage, all one-handed weapons deal 1d8 or 1d10 damage and all two-handed weapons deal 1d12 or 2d6 damage. Pick whether it's a strength weapon or dexterity weapon. Apply tags such as reach or heaviness, with one being free and further tags costing one dice size. That's it. The end result is the same but the whole thing is simpler and more modular, which is supposed to be 5E's thing.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-05, 06:04 AM
Is Asmodeus still a chump who doesnt know who Mestopholes is or gets diplomanced by a level 1 paladin?

Oh yeah, there was a very effective diplomancer in the last playtest package. I'll have to check if that trick still works. :smallbiggrin:

Water Bob
2014-07-05, 10:53 AM
Here's some more notes about the game I found on a blog (referring to the Starter Set).


If you get a reroll for any reason you only reroll one die. So if the attack you just made was with advantage and you get a reroll you only reroll one die, not both.

Advantage or disadvantage provides a +5/-5 modifier on a passive check. So a passive Perception (Wis) check used to hear a Stealthy enemy get +5 if the enemy is at disadvantage or -5 if they have advantage.

The Search skill was renamed Investigate (Int). Perform (Cha) was added as a new skill.

When standing from prone it costs you half your movement. This sucks if youíve got a high speed, but itís better than taking your full move action.

The double move mechanic formerly known as Hustle was renamed Dash.

You suffer disadvantage when making a ranged attack (with weapon or spell) against a creature within 5 feet / adjacent to you.

You only get one bonus action per round. Making an attack with a second weapon in your off hand is now a bonus action. The Swift casting time was renamed bonus action. The Rogueís cunning action is now a bonus action.
Now Rogues with two weapons can either attack with the second weapon or use Cunning Action to move again.

When you score a crit you roll all damage dice twice, including any bonus dice like a Rogueís sneak dice, and then you add your appropriate modifiers like Str bonus.

You donít track negative hit points. When you hit 0 you fall unconscious. However, if you ever take damage equal to your maximum hit points while youíre at 0 you die instantly. Itís dangerous at low levels, but not likely as dangers at high levels.

You must have 1 hit point at the start of a long rest to get the benefits of resting.

Spells that have the duration Concentration require the caster to make a Concentration (Con) save if they take damage. The DC is 10 or half the damage, whichever is higher. The spellcaster makes a new save after every hit.

pwykersotz
2014-07-05, 11:38 AM
And apparently you can Overchannel cantrips for free as written, as many times as you like, without any drawback.


If you use this feature again before you finish a long rest, you take 2d12 necrotic damage for each level of the spell, immediately after you cast it. Each time you use this feature again before finishing a long rest, the necrotic damage per spell level increases by 1d12.

The first and second time you take 0 damage. The third time, the damage per spell level (0) increases by 1d12. Total damage for the third casting, 1d12.

I'm sure CharOP will side with your interpretation though. :smallsigh:

captpike
2014-07-05, 11:45 AM
The first and second time you take 0 damage. The third time, the damage per spell level (0) increases by 1d12. Total damage for the third casting, 1d12.

I'm sure CharOP will side with your interpretation though. :smallsigh:

anything times 0 is 0.

the third casting you add 1d12 to the 2d12 per spell level. so you just increase the number you multiply by 0.

yes its stupid but that is what it says

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-05, 12:00 PM
The first and second time you take 0 damage. The third time, the damage per spell level (0) increases by 1d12. Total damage for the third casting, 1d12.

I'm sure CharOP will side with your interpretation though. :smallsigh:

From the reading I think you are correct.

(Spell Level * 2d12) = Second Use
(Spell Level * 2d12) + 1d12 = Third Use
(Spell Level * 2d12) + 2d12 = Fourth Use

Sure if you are looking to break or cheese up the game people can go ahead and do it the other way. Though maximized Cantrips aren't the worse things in the world (moar damage!) but I can see how people don't want evocation wizards pulling out that much damage at-will.

The Mormegil
2014-07-05, 12:01 PM
The first and second time you take 0 damage. The third time, the damage per spell level (0) increases by 1d12. Total damage for the third casting, 1d12.

I'm sure CharOP will side with your interpretation though. :smallsigh:

Look, I know nothing of the edition but I'd side with that interpretation too. I don't know if it's intended or not, but you can't tell me 3d12 times 0 is 1d12...

rlc
2014-07-05, 12:14 PM
It specifies that "the damage per spell level increases," not just that the damage increases. Unless you're considering a previously overchanneled spell to now semi-permanently be a level higher than it was before, then the math still checks out to be zero damage.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-05, 12:20 PM
Look, I know nothing of the edition but I'd side with that interpretation too. I don't know if it's intended or not, but you can't tell me 3d12 times 0 is 1d12...

Read my quote. The way its worded can be used to make the math work like above.

Math and the English language should never mix, but when it does... Hold onto your hat cause it's about to get weird.


Edit

Damage per spell level = (0 * 2d12)

Increasing this gives you

(0 * 2d12) + 1d12 = 1d12

Callin
2014-07-05, 12:24 PM
Would have been easier if they had just said instead of (Level 0) in the spells section it had just read Cantrips. Then this would be a non issue because I cant find it listed as anything other than Cantrip in other places. Yes its still called a "Spell" in descriptions and such but actually being listed as a level 0 spell is in the Spell Section.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-05, 12:33 PM
Would have been easier if they had just said instead of (Level 0) in the spells section it had just read Cantrips. Then this would be a non issue because I cant find it listed as anything other than Cantrip in other places. Yes its still called a "Spell" in descriptions and such but actually being listed as a level 0 spell is in the Spell Section.

I thought of that too haha.

Wait... I think Cantrips are only called 0 Level and not level 0... How is the ability worded because Cantrips aren't level 0 but 0 level... :smallbiggrin:

Callin
2014-07-05, 12:39 PM
I mean because then they would not be "Spells" only "Cantrips" and as such not subject to being able to be Overchanneled. But since they were listed in the Spell list as

Wizard Spells
Cantrips (0 Level)

Then they are now Spells and can be abused by Overchannel. If it had just been

Wizard Spells
Cantrips

Then this would be a non issues

Tanuki Tales
2014-07-05, 12:42 PM
How incredibly common is Poison damage in Next? I just opened up the basic rules pdf and I'm already seeing a nerf to Dwarves and Halflings unless these damage types are as common as sand on a beach.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-05, 12:43 PM
I mean because then they would not be "Spells" only "Cantrips" and as such not subject to being able to be Overchanneled. But since they were listed in the Spell list as

Wizard Spells
Cantrips (0 Level)

Then they are now Spells and can be abused by Overchannel. If it had just been

Wizard Spells
Cantrips

Then this would be a non issues

Except it says somewhere Cantrips are spells (I think in the Cantrip section).

All they need to do is say "Cantrips count as level 1 spells for this ability" and boom. The ability as is doesn't give no damage but I can see how people will twist it to do just that. Add this sentence in there and you won't have that problem.

Or

Cantrips count as .5 spell level for this ability.

1d12 * .5 damage +1d12 damage/use

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-05, 01:23 PM
How incredibly common is Poison damage in Next? I just opened up the basic rules pdf and I'm already seeing a nerf to Dwarves and Halflings unless these damage types are as common as sand on a beach.

I think poison will eventually be more popular, either put on weapons or by making all poisons saves (spells or otherwise) Con based.

The Mormegil
2014-07-05, 01:30 PM
Each time you use this feature again before finishing a long rest, the necrotic damage per spell level increases by 1d12.


Each time you use this feature again before finishing a long rest, the necrotic damage increases by 1d12.

I fail to see how you can turn the first sentence into the second one. But then again, wizards are magic, so... :smallbiggrin:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-05, 01:35 PM
I fail to see how you can turn the first sentence into the second one. But then again, wizards are magic, so... :smallbiggrin:

Spell level damage = (xd12 * 0)

Increase per spell level = +1d12

Thus

After the second time you use it

(2d12*0)+1d12 = 1d12

Basic and simple.

da_chicken
2014-07-05, 01:37 PM
Except it says somewhere Cantrips are spells (I think in the Cantrip section).

Yes, page 78 under "Cantrips". They are spells and are spell level 0.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-05, 01:51 PM
Yes, page 78 under "Cantrips". They are spells and are spell level 0.

Thought so.

Also I was hoping they would only refer to them as 0 Level just for the hilariously funny concept that 0 level and level 0 aren't the same thing haha

da_chicken
2014-07-05, 01:51 PM
Spell level damage = (xd12 * 0)

Increase per spell level = +1d12

Thus

After the second time you use it

(2d12*0)+1d12 = 1d12

Basic and simple.

Except the Overpower feature explicitly specifies the damage per spell level increases by 1d12. You need to add before you multiply.

And yes, this means the feature is basically usable like once a day because the damage is so high. Take 6d12 (39) damage to cast a maximized 6d6 (60) fireball? That's pretty mediocre. Take 9d12 (59) to do the same thing again when you have 100 hp (assuming no rolling and 16 Con)? That's useless. It's a once a day maybe twice in a pinch feature that allows you to suicide strike if the Cleric has Revivify.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-05, 02:07 PM
Except the Overpower feature explicitly specifies the damage per spell level increases by 1d12. You need to add before you multiply.

And yes, this means the feature is basically usable like once a day because the damage is so high. Take 6d12 (39) damage to cast a maximized 6d6 (60) fireball? That's pretty mediocre. Take 9d12 (59) to do the same thing again when you have 100 hp (assuming no rolling and 16 Con)? That's useless. It's a once a day maybe twice in a pinch feature that allows you to suicide strike if the Cleric has Revivify.


Multiply
Divide
Add
Subtract

Multiple the spell level by the damage to get "damage per spell level" then increase the "damage per spell level" by xd12.

But yeah the entire ability needs fixed.

How about...

Each time after the first use, decrease your Max Hit Points (temporarily of course) by (spell level + 1)d4. This hit point maximum resets to your normal HP maximum after a full nights rest however lost HP do not automatically come back and must be healed normally.

Sartharina
2014-07-05, 02:27 PM
Multiply
Divide
Add
Subtract

Multiple the spell level by the damage to get "damage per spell level" then increase the "damage per spell level" by xd12.

But yeah the entire ability needs fixed.

How about...

Each time after the first use, decrease your Max Hit Points (temporarily of course) by (spell level + 1)d4. This hit point maximum resets to your normal HP maximum after a full nights rest however lost HP do not automatically come back and must be healed normally.

No, the ability doesn't need fixing aside from cantrip interaction. It specifies the damage per spell level( :roy: L-E-V-E-L) increases by 1d12, not the damage from the overchannel.

The variable isn't "Dawizard per spell level". It's "Dawizard". "Spell Level ( :roy: L-E-V-E-L)" is another variable entirely, with "Per" being a multiplier. Learn to math and english.

Here's the equation:
s= Spell Level ( :roy: L-E-V-E-L)
o= Overchannels.
d= dawizard

d=2d12s+1d12s(o-1)

Callin
2014-07-05, 02:29 PM
Roy is a spell level now?

obryn
2014-07-05, 02:56 PM
No, the ability doesn't need fixing aside from cantrip interaction. It specifies the damage per spell level( :roy: L-E-V-E-L) increases by 1d12, not the damage from the overchannel.
This is correct and crazy.

Oh lordy, 5e is turning out to be Wizard Edition: Part Two.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-05, 03:56 PM
This is correct and crazy.

Oh lordy, 5e is turning out to be Wizard Edition: Part Two.

If it's gonna cause such headaches, then just rule that it doesn't work with Cantrips. Nothing unfair about it, Cantrips already have the at-will factor going to them.

Human Paragon 3
2014-07-05, 10:11 PM
So I went through and built a character from the basic rules. It took less than 10 minutes, and I'm very happy with the results. I did my best to model Finn the Human as a fighter (making a level 1 character exactly by the rules). Here he is:


Finn

Lawful Good Human Fighter 1


Str 16
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 9
Wis 10
Cha 12

HP: 12

AC: 16

Fighting Style (Dueling)
Second Wind

Proficiency Bons +2

Proficiencies:

Armor: All armor, shields
Weapons: Simple weapons, martial weapons
Tools: Tinkerer's Tools
Saving Throws: Strength, Constitution
Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Animal Handling, Vehicles (land)

Background: Folk Hero

Defining event: Stood against a dangerous monster alone
Feature: Rustic Hospitality
Personality Trait: If someone is in trouble, I'm always there to help
Ideal: Respect
Bond: I have a family but have no idea where they are; I hope to one day see them again
Flaw: I'm convinced of the significance of my destiny, and blind to my shortcomings or the risk of failure


Equipment:
Chain Mail
Long Sword
2x Hand axe
Explorer's Pack
Tinkerer's tools
A rope necklace, from which dangles four mummified elf fingers

Psyren
2014-07-05, 11:08 PM
If it's gonna cause such headaches, then just rule that it doesn't work with Cantrips. Nothing unfair about it, Cantrips already have the at-will factor going to them.

If the solution to every potential problem that comes up in this edition is going to be "houserule it so it's not a problem" - well, I already have editions where I've done exactly that. Why reinvent the wheel/pay for new rules then?

TheOOB
2014-07-05, 11:16 PM
If the solution to every potential problem that comes up in this edition is going to be "houserule it so it's not a problem" - well, I already have editions where I've done exactly that. Why reinvent the wheel/pay for new rules then?

That's a pretty damning condemnation for one fairly easy to spot and fix rules issue for a pre-release cut down version of a game.

Sartharina
2014-07-05, 11:17 PM
1. Fewer rules need houseruling.
2. The houserules that fix the broken rules aren't as divergent from the original rules.
3. The rules that do work, work better with the system holistically.

Envyus
2014-07-05, 11:20 PM
Mike Mearls: Regarding Potent Cantrip - we'll add cantrips that can benefit from it to Basic D&D.

Yep it's useless right now.

obryn
2014-07-05, 11:28 PM
Yep it's useless right now.
Also it means they didn't even bother keeping things consistent. Make cantrips all attack rolls, or all saves, please.

Stubbazubba
2014-07-05, 11:53 PM
Rules in TTRPGs are guidelines, not absolutes. A rule that is satisfying 80% of the time but is easily broken/abused is better than a rule that can't be broken/abused but is only satisfying 10% of the time.

This is the definition of a false dichotomy. If, after all the years of research and design that went into 5e, the best they can do is make a rule that works properly 80% of the time, then they don't deserve to get much of a return on that "investment."

For a first draft, that would be OK, but we are noticing these things simply as we read through an alleged final product. Rules in isolation are this exploitable, imagine what they'll be in combination.



1. Fewer rules need houseruling.

That's a bold assertion, I'm not sure it's true. There are less rules overall, yes, but it's like day 3 and we've got a handful of necessary houserules already, so I don't see how you extrapolate that out to "fewer rules need houseruling."


2. The houserules that fix the broken rules aren't as divergent from the original rules.

How do you divine that?


3. The rules that do work, work better with the system holistically.

This sounds like wishful thinking. There are some decent ideas in here for a D&D Lite sort of game, but the implementation thus far seems sub-par.

HeadlessMermaid
2014-07-06, 12:25 AM
Say, has anyone heard anything about called shots or similar, as an optional rule? I'm assuming maneuvers are out of the question, and called shots are a good way for mundane classes to do combat with a little more variety than "I hit it again, and occasionally trip/grapple". It makes perfect sense for some conditions (blinded, deafened, stunned) and for speed penalties to apply for a couple of rounds after a solid hit to an appropriate body part.

Something like the Pathfinder version (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/variants/calledShots.html) would probably be too complicated for this edition, but I'm secretly hoping there will be, at least, guidelines in the DMG for improvising rules and winging saving throws.

... Wishful thinking, I know. :smallsigh: Even Disarm is out of the standard rules?

TheOOB
2014-07-06, 12:30 AM
Also it means they didn't even bother keeping things consistent. Make cantrips all attack rolls, or all saves, please.

It's more consistent than you might think. Spells usually require saving throws so that they bypass armor and target different defenses, and so multiple tagets may be affected differently. Attacks use an attack roll for speed and ease of play, and so armor is a factor. The damage dealing cantrips we have use attack rolls to keep things quick and to prevent them from simply destroying foes with armor.

Basically, a single target attack that deals damage will use an attack roll, a multi target or status inducing attack will use a save.

TheOOB
2014-07-06, 12:32 AM
Say, has anyone heard anything about called shots or similar, as an optional rule? I'm assuming maneuvers are out of the question, and called shots are a good way for mundane classes to do combat with a little more variety than "I hit it again, and occasionally trip/grapple". It makes perfect sense for some conditions (blinded, deafened, stunned) and for speed penalties to apply for a couple of rounds after a solid hit to an appropriate body part.

Something like the Pathfinder version (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/variants/calledShots.html) would probably be too complicated for this edition, but I'm secretly hoping there will be, at least, guidelines in the DMG for improvising rules and winging saving throws.

... Wishful thinking, I know. :smallsigh: Even Disarm is out of the standard rules?

Disarm is out of the basic rules. PHB doesn't come out till August.

Personally, I'd prefer if such combat manuvers were handled by feats or special abilities rather than something anyone could do. Make it complixity you choose rather than complexity that is forced upon you. Plus that way you can make the abilities simple and actually good without having to make a bunch of weird rules that make them unattrative choices to use in combat.

da_chicken
2014-07-06, 12:39 AM
Eh, I think most of the issues people have had are concerns that have to be proved out by actual play. I'm betting the vast majority are chicken littles.

The only real oversights are with Potent Cantrip and Overpower, and those seem like just simple oversights. They're not even particularly hard to fix.

I don't like Second Wind as written, but I'm not sure what to do with it yet. As written it's like a free Ring of Regeneration. I don't care about Martial healing, I just don't like it being unlimited. Restricting it to once per long rest or using Hit Dice seems likely (possibly allowing extra dice to restore) but I'll have to play it first. I'd rather it just had fixed, scaling uses per long rest like spells are.

Spell saves by PC classed NPCs at very high level are a concern, but I'm not sure it's a bad thing. High level Wizards should be terrifying, and they've spent 20 levels getting better at casting. A Fighter hasn't spent 20 levels getting better at Wis saves. Hold person on the whole party seems good, but Rogue, Wiz, and Cleric have proficiency there, and the Fighter has 14 points of ability score increases to use, only 3 or 4 of which probably go to Str. And then the enemy can't cast any other Concentration spells, meaning the Wiz has wide open defenses. Even Otto's irresistible dance is concentration. Is save or suck that good if it keeps the caster from defending herself? I don't know, I have to play it. I mean, meteor swarm does 40d6. An evoker can do 245 damage with that, DC 19, which is pretty damn good. That kills a level 20 Wizard with Con 14 even on a save, and a Con 20 Hill Dwarf Fighter 20 on a failure (assuming non-rolled).

And what will we see from multiclassing and feats? Will it be easy or hard to get a save proficiency? I don't know. You can buy tool and mount or vehicle proficiencies with gold and time. What about weapon proficiencies? Armor? Saves?

pwykersotz
2014-07-06, 12:40 AM
So I went through and built a character from the basic rules. It took less than 10 minutes, and I'm very happy with the results. I did my best to model Finn the Human as a fighter (making a level 1 character exactly by the rules). Here he is:


Finn

Lawful Good Human Fighter 1


Str 16
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 9
Wis 10
Cha 12

HP: 12

AC: 16

Fighting Style (Dueling)
Second Wind

Proficiency Bons +2

Proficiencies:

Armor: All armor, shields
Weapons: Simple weapons, martial weapons
Tools: Tinkerer's Tools
Saving Throws: Strength, Constitution
Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Animal Handling, Vehicles (land)

Background: Folk Hero

Defining event: Stood against a dangerous monster alone
Feature: Rustic Hospitality
Personality Trait: If someone is in trouble, I'm always there to help
Ideal: Respect
Bond: I have a family but have no idea where they are; I hope to one day see them again
Flaw: I'm convinced of the significance of my destiny, and blind to my shortcomings or the risk of failure


Equipment:
Chain Mail
Long Sword
2x Hand axe
Explorer's Pack
Tinkerer's tools
A rope necklace, from which dangles four mummified elf fingers


I just rolled a Rogue after reading your post. I did not realize until just now how much of my time in 3.5 is spent nitpicking skills and choosing feats. Holy crap, it was super easy to build this character. :smallsmile:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-06, 12:56 AM
I just rolled a Rogue after reading your post. I did not realize until just now how much of my time in 3.5 is spent nitpicking skills and choosing feats. Holy crap, it was super easy to build this character. :smallsmile:

I just played a pregen fighter and was fantastic, I have never played a pregen (DM made) that I had a good time with in the system. There was always a skill or something that I would want to pick up.

I played a Dwarven Fighter (1 handed weapon, two weapon fighting, and two weapon thrown fighting with the same weapon... Battle Axe and a Light hammer) and was hell a competent at being a fighter no matter the choice I picked... It. Was. Fan. Tastic.

Edit:

Also I made a rogue on my Google doc, he hates dwarves and thus smuggle taboo items into dwarven lands. I made his arch rival a dwarven cleric (made him a PC).

Varis
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nLDfaU_UHnuGn9WBb6ryVT3nQtjoQG5ANQnQf5Tu8tY/edit?usp=docslist_api

I need to finish out the items and such but so far so good.

Sartharina
2014-07-06, 01:05 AM
I'm rolling up a Cleric right now... and even with "Healbot Specialization", they don't really provide much decent healing :(.

No passive boost to Hit Die recovery, a terrible-but-probably-mandatory 'stabilize' cantrip, and only two abilities to actually heal someone twice a day. And unlike wizards, they don't get their spell slots back as they level up :(

Particle_Man
2014-07-06, 01:10 AM
How incredibly common is Poison damage in Next? I just opened up the basic rules pdf and I'm already seeing a nerf to Dwarves and Halflings unless these damage types are as common as sand on a beach.

Well in the equipment section you can buy poison, so there is that.

As for overchannel, I think elsewhere, for another purpose, 0 level spells were treated as 0.5 level spells, so for consistency I would treat them as such and go for 1d12 necrotic damage (.5 x 2d12).

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-06, 01:10 AM
I'm rolling up a Cleric right now... and even with "Healbot Specialization", they don't really provide much decent healing :(.

No passive boost to Hit Die recovery, a terrible-but-probably-mandatory 'stabilize' cantrip, and only two abilities to actually heal someone twice a day.

Don't worry you won't be a heal not unless you want to be.

Boost strength or Dex (your choice) and go two weapon fighting. Have Wis be your second highest score and go with sacred flame and whatever else you want.

8 + wis + prof will be the save (+2 wis ain't horrible for this).

Sure you can do a lot of haling but you will be bashing things in the face, a lot. You will also have a cool Cantrip to fall back on.

Clericzilla will be back in this edition.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-06, 01:13 AM
Eh, I think most of the issues people have had are concerns that have to be proved out by actual play. I'm betting the vast majority are chicken littles.

The only real oversights are with Potent Cantrip and Overpower, and those seem like just simple oversights. They're not even particularly hard to fix.

I don't like Second Wind as written, but I'm not sure what to do with it yet. As written it's like a free Ring of Regeneration. I don't care about Martial healing, I just don't like it being unlimited. Restricting it to once per long rest or using Hit Dice seems likely (possibly allowing extra dice to restore) but I'll have to play it first. I'd rather it just had fixed, scaling uses per long rest like spells are.

Spell saves by PC classed NPCs at very high level are a concern, but I'm not sure it's a bad thing. High level Wizards should be terrifying, and they've spent 20 levels getting better at casting. A Fighter hasn't spent 20 levels getting better at Wis saves. Hold person on the whole party seems good, but Rogue, Wiz, and Cleric have proficiency there, and the Fighter has 14 points of ability score increases to use, only 3 or 4 of which probably go to Str. And then the enemy can't cast any other Concentration spells, meaning the Wiz has wide open defenses. Even Otto's irresistible dance is concentration. Is save or suck that good if it keeps the caster from defending herself? I don't know, I have to play it. I mean, meteor swarm does 40d6. An evoker can do 245 damage with that, DC 19, which is pretty damn good. That kills a level 20 Wizard with Con 14 even on a save, and a Con 20 Hill Dwarf Fighter 20 on a failure (assuming non-rolled).

And what will we see from multiclassing and feats? Will it be easy or hard to get a save proficiency? I don't know. You can buy tool and mount or vehicle proficiencies with gold and time. What about weapon proficiencies? Armor? Saves?


Random note about Second Wind. Short rest is now 1 hour so it isn't like you can get it back whenever you want.

da_chicken
2014-07-06, 02:24 AM
Random note about Second Wind. Short rest is now 1 hour so it isn't like you can get it back whenever you want.

No, but you only get one long rest a day, so the Fighter can probably count on a good 8-10 Second Winds once camp is made. A 5th level Fighter healing 5d10+25 for resting half a day without spending Hit Dice? It's still ludicrously faster and more potent than any other healing, too, like the Cleric is limited to 50% hp with Preserve Life and that's magical. Paladins had a daily limit in playtest, too.

I just don't understand why it's unlimited use when every other non-combat effect has daily limits. Hell, if you're seriously injured, just short rest all night and eat the exhaustion level. It's a free 8d10+(level*8) healing.

Currently all I plan to do is give my players a DM frown if they try to use it more that once between being injured or in combat.

HeadlessMermaid
2014-07-06, 02:24 AM
Disarm is out of the basic rules. PHB doesn't come out till August.

Right, basic. That's what I meant. :)


Personally, I'd prefer if such combat manuvers were handled by feats or special abilities rather than something anyone could do. Make it complixity you choose rather than complexity that is forced upon you.

Oh dear, I wouldn't like that. There are fewer feats now, and only at the expense of ability boosts. I would hope they are way more impressive than 3.5, I wouldn't be satisfied with the equivalent of ambush feats. And special abilities (you mean class abilities, right?), well that was my concern. Do you really need to be a rogue (or whatever) to damage someone's leg so severely that he limps for a while? Do you need to spend [character customization resources]? Isn't it kind of obvious that if you smash somebody's knee hard enough he'll have a hard time running?

Basically, all I want (as an optional rule, because I understand people who just want to count hit points and get done with it) is for mundanes to be able to something fancier in combat, though entirely within verisimilitude limits. I'm not too concerned with the mechanics, and I'm fine with keeping it simple.

Psyren
2014-07-06, 04:38 AM
1. Fewer rules need houseruling.
2. The houserules that fix the broken rules aren't as divergent from the original rules.
3. The rules that do work, work better with the system holistically.

1) Right now there's fewer rules period, so time will tell if your first point holds to be true. Given that the supposed trimmed down version is generating these many questions and they're asking for dough for the rest, I'm not exactly encouraged.

2) I don't see how this is a selling point. For rules I like I'm prepared to diverge quite a bit - see for instance the Community ToB errata (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0), which is quite extensive yet still largely simple and intuitive to grasp.

3) Again, this is easy to say now due to point 1.

1of3
2014-07-06, 04:48 AM
But the game's blurb keep selling us that near-epic characters need to have adventurers where "the destiny of the world is at risk". If the DM actually wants to do what the box promises and design a 20th level adventure where, for example, apocalypse is coming and the entire planet's population needs to be moved to a new home, or a mysterious plague is destroying newborn people souls, or whatever, then the 20th level Wizard can in fact be a major player there, while the 20th fighter will be at best an accessory.

No.

There is no "End mysterious plague" spell. There is no "Teleport Populations" spell.

A wizard cannot do either of that with spells or class features.

Insofar there is no difference between a wizard and a fighter.

How would such an adventure work?

Find the Population Moving Artefact!
Slay the Mysterious Plague Mother!

Again, there is no difference between fighter and wizard.

If you want to argue that wizards are more powerful than fighters, that is not a way to do it.

Morty
2014-07-06, 05:47 AM
Oh dear, I wouldn't like that. There are fewer feats now, and only at the expense of ability boosts. I would hope they are way more impressive than 3.5, I wouldn't be satisfied with the equivalent of ambush feats. And special abilities (you mean class abilities, right?), well that was my concern. Do you really need to be a rogue (or whatever) to damage someone's leg so severely that he limps for a while? Do you need to spend [character customization resources]? Isn't it kind of obvious that if you smash somebody's knee hard enough he'll have a hard time running?

Basically, all I want (as an optional rule, because I understand people who just want to count hit points and get done with it) is for mundanes to be able to something fancier in combat, though entirely within verisimilitude limits. I'm not too concerned with the mechanics, and I'm fine with keeping it simple.

Definitely agreed. Optional, maybe. Spending scarce character-building resources to obtain them, heck no. Mind you, I truly, honestly do not understand the notion that they're somehow complex. A whole list of manoeuvres like Tome of Battle martial initiators get, that's complex. A short list of things you can attempt in combat? Not really.

Of course, the problem with called shots, specifically, in a high-fantasy setting like D&D's is that the rules need to account for fighting things with lots of tentacles, but no arms or discernible head.

rlc
2014-07-06, 07:10 AM
Say, has anyone heard anything about called shots or similar, as an optional rule? I
I remember reading something about called shots. Probably a feat, so coming later.

For a first draft, that would be OK, but we are noticing these things simply as we read through an alleged final product. Rules in isolation are this exploitable, imagine what they'll be in combination.
For whatever it's worth, they did say that this isn't the final product and they intend to edit it as they release more books.

obryn
2014-07-06, 08:34 AM
Well, there is a maneuver-based Fighter and it doesn't look awful, but it does look kind of bland.

There's a list of maneuvers, but it's the same list at 20th level as it is at 3rd, when you pick 3 for the subclass. Your Expertise Die increases in size, your Save DCs increase (8+2x Proficiency Bonus), but you never get more powerful effects from it.

That means when you learn a 9th maneuver at 17th level, by definition you get the one you wanted least. :smallsmile:

I think these will remain Fighter-exclusive, because Fighters deserve stuff of their own, too. If you want them, there's always multi-classing!

brocadecity
2014-07-06, 08:57 AM
One question I have, and I'm sorry that it's terribly basic, is cleric domain spells. Let's say a 1st level cleric can prepare 4 spells per long rest. Are the domain spells 2 of those 4 spells or are they two additional spells giving them a total of 6? The rules are rather vague on this point, and I could read them as saying either.

obryn
2014-07-06, 08:59 AM
One question I have, and I'm sorry that it's terribly basic, is cleric domain spells. Let's say a 1st level cleric can prepare 4 spells per long rest. Are the domain spells 2 of those 4 spells or are they two additional spells giving them a total of 6? The rules are rather vague on this point, and I could read them as saying either.
Domain spells are extra ones they have prepared at all times.

They don't get any more castings, though.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-06, 09:02 AM
No, but you only get one long rest a day, so the Fighter can probably count on a good 8-10 Second Winds once camp is made. A 5th level Fighter healing 5d10+25 for resting half a day without spending Hit Dice? It's still ludicrously faster and more potent than any other healing, too, like the Cleric is limited to 50% hp with Preserve Life and that's magical. Paladins had a daily limit in playtest, too.

I just don't understand why it's unlimited use when every other non-combat effect has daily limits. Hell, if you're seriously injured, just short rest all night and eat the exhaustion level. It's a free 8d10+(level*8) healing.

Currently all I plan to do is give my players a DM frown if they try to use it more that once between being injured or in combat.

Not at all, this is all up to the DM and party. You can't always take an hour to do nothing. Ignoring plot is not something you can do in this RPG. Im not seeing why you are pretending like plot doesn't exist though.

It isn't effected by daily because it isn't magic. Watch out, the sky might fall if non-casters get nice things!

1337 b4k4
2014-07-06, 11:52 AM
No, but you only get one long rest a day, so the Fighter can probably count on a good 8-10 Second Winds once camp is made. A 5th level Fighter healing 5d10+25 for resting half a day without spending Hit Dice? It's still ludicrously faster and more potent than any other healing, too, like the Cleric is limited to 50% hp with Preserve Life and that's magical. Paladins had a daily limit in playtest, too.

I just don't understand why it's unlimited use when every other non-combat effect has daily limits. Hell, if you're seriously injured, just short rest all night and eat the exhaustion level. It's a free 8d10+(level*8) healing.

Currently all I plan to do is give my players a DM frown if they try to use it more that once between being injured or in combat.

Why short rest all night when doing a long rest gives you all your HP back?

TheOOB
2014-07-06, 12:32 PM
I see no problem with the fighter being super sustainable. That's their thing. Wizards can cast earth shatter magic, Fighters are nearly as effective in their 20th encounter in a day as their first

Remember that HP doesn't represent physical damage, but rather your cinematic ability to avoid damage. An arrow that deals 10 points of damage might pierce a level 1 wizards chest, but it will nick the cheek of a level 20 fighter. The only hp that really matters is the last one, and fighters are such tough bastards that it's really hard to get that one last hit in.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-06, 12:39 PM
Remember that HP doesn't represent physical damage, but rather your cinematic ability to avoid damage. An arrow that deals 10 points of damage might pierce a level 1 wizards chest, but it will nick the cheek of a level 20 fighter. The only hp that really matters is the last one, and fighters are such tough bastards that it's really hard to get that one last hit in.

Remember that almost every player will interpret HP as physical damage, just like in every other edition of D&D :smallamused:

da_chicken
2014-07-06, 12:43 PM
Not at all, this is all up to the DM and party. You can't always take an hour to do nothing. Ignoring plot is not something you can do in this RPG. Im not seeing why you are pretending like plot doesn't exist though.

Because plot doesn't always exist, and because even if you take a short rest between encounters and do four encounters a day that's still only seven or eight hours. One long rest is eight hours. You've still got eight or nine hours left in the day, so you should often be able to heal to 100%. Unless you're saying the plot should be driving you to eight encounters per day consistently, or you should always have 3 hours between encounters, or players should always be active. Will it always give you 8 dice of healing? No, but it will reasonably often, I suspect.


It isn't effected by daily because it isn't magic. Watch out, the sky might fall if non-casters get nice things!

Holy **** I'm not saying non casters can't have nice things and I don't have a problem with martial healing as I already explicitly stated. I have a problem with any class that can heal to 100% every day essentially without any cap or tradeoff. Spells have a trade-off. Preserve Life has a cap. Lay on Hands has a limit. The Champion's regeneration ability has a cap. I'm not convinced that requiring an hour of rest to benefit is enough of a limit because of the amount of free time present in the game.

And as I said, these are just concerns. Things I'm not certain are issues and I need to play the game to be sure about.

Envyus
2014-07-06, 01:02 PM
Why short rest all night when doing a long rest gives you all your HP back?

Plus a caster does not get his spell slots back during a short rest. I would expect 3 or 4 short rests in a day.

Morty
2014-07-06, 01:20 PM
Well, there is a maneuver-based Fighter and it doesn't look awful, but it does look kind of bland.

There's a list of maneuvers, but it's the same list at 20th level as it is at 3rd, when you pick 3 for the subclass. Your Expertise Die increases in size, your Save DCs increase (8+2x Proficiency Bonus), but you never get more powerful effects from it.

That means when you learn a 9th maneuver at 17th level, by definition you get the one you wanted least. :smallsmile:

I think these will remain Fighter-exclusive, because Fighters deserve stuff of their own, too. If you want them, there's always multi-classing!

It's not nothing, but it'd be far better if there was a handful of basic combat actions anyone can perform, and the Fighter maneuvers were, you know, actual special moves that set the fighters apart from regular combatants. Those we saw a while ago in a blog post were, shall we say, rudimentary.

da_chicken
2014-07-06, 01:22 PM
Why short rest all night when doing a long rest gives you all your HP back?

Alright what the heck. We were playing with long rests just restoring half Hit Dice and no hp. That wasn't even right in the playtest. We never played it right! Dammit Chris and Dan, we are going to have words! :smallannoyed:

Nevermind, then. Sorry, all. :smallbiggrin:

obryn
2014-07-06, 01:38 PM
It's not nothing, but it'd be far better if there was a handful of basic combat actions anyone can perform, and the Fighter maneuvers were, you know, actual special moves that set the fighters apart from regular combatants. Those we saw a while ago in a blog post were, shall we say, rudimentary.
I'd be happy to post them, but...

HeadlessMermaid
2014-07-06, 01:54 PM
Of course, the problem with called shots, specifically, in a high-fantasy setting like D&D's is that the rules need to account for fighting things with lots of tentacles, but no arms or discernible head.

Why is that a concern? Make a few simple rules which apply to humanoids who move with their legs, see with their eyes and hear with their ears. And then make it clear that, for different targets, common sense applies and the DM is the judge of that.

- I'm aiming for the dire bat's ear!
- You hit, it's deafened and loses its blindsight for two rounds.

- I'm aiming for the beholder's eyestalk!
- You hit, it loses said eyestalk's ray for a round.

- I'm aiming for the centipede's leg!
- You hit, nothing else happens.

I think the only general rule needed is the trade-off. What must you do to make a called shot? Take a penalty to attack or damage? Have disadvantage for the attack roll? Are they triggered automatically on crits? There are many options.

[And apparently none of them is being used, since we only get a maneuver-based archetype exclusively for fighters?? Did I get that right?]

Morty
2014-07-06, 02:19 PM
Why is that a concern? Make a few simple rules which apply to humanoids who move with their legs, see with their eyes and hear with their ears. And then make it clear that, for different targets, common sense applies and the DM is the judge of that.

- I'm aiming for the dire bat's ear!
- You hit, it's deafened and loses its blindsight for two rounds.

- I'm aiming for the beholder's eyestalk!
- You hit, it loses said eyestalk's ray for a round.

- I'm aiming for the centipede's leg!
- You hit, nothing else happens.

True, but it does take some fine-tuning, especially with the base combat model being so shallow.


I think the only general rule needed is the trade-off. What must you do to make a called shot? Take a penalty to attack or damage? Have disadvantage for the attack roll? Are they triggered automatically on crits? There are many options.

There would be more options if the combat system wasn't just 'roll to hit, roll to damage', but yeah. The problem with taking a penalty to attack or damage is that it might end up less useful than participating in the HP depletion race.


[And apparently none of them is being used, since we only get a maneuver-based archetype exclusively for fighters?? Did I get that right?]

Apparently so. We got a blog post about them a couple months ago. The examples they have were the kind of thing that should really be part of the default combat system, but maybe it's changed in the meantime.

obryn
2014-07-06, 04:28 PM
[And apparently none of them is being used, since we only get a maneuver-based archetype exclusively for fighters?? Did I get that right?]


Apparently so. We got a blog post about them a couple months ago. The examples they have were the kind of thing that should really be part of the default combat system, but maybe it's changed in the meantime.
I would bet there'll be a feat to pick up some mediocre abilities in that vein, but if not there's always multiclassing. That's what you'd have to do to pick up the Rogue's Sneak Attack or a Wizard's spellcasting, after all.

I've never understood why Fighters can't have stuff that exclusively belongs to them. They're highly-trained, highly-athletic exemplars of martial prowess. Someone else wants to fight like them? Suck it up and multiclass. :smallsmile:

For the record, here's the maneuver list. All of them cost a die, but most will let you decide whether or not to spend the die after a successful hit. The Expertise Die (starting at d8 scaling to d12) adds to damage, too.

Commander's Strike: Forego one of your attacks to give a buddy an attack.
Disarming Attack: Hit a guy. They make a Strength save or drop their stuff.
Distracting Strike: Hit a guy. The next time a buddy attacks he has Advantage.
Feinting Attack: Bonus action. Choose a target, you have advantage against them for your attack.
Goading Attack: Hit a guy, and the guy makes a Wisdom save. Failure means he has Disadvantage to attack anyone but you.
Lunging Attack: Add +5' to reach. booo-ring
Maneuvering Attack: Hit a guy. An ally can move half its speed right now without provoking OAs from your target.
Menacing Attack: Hit a guy. Guy needs to make a Wisdom save; failure = he's Frightened of you.
Parry: A guy hits you. Roll your Expertise Die + Dex mod and reduce the damage.
Precision Attack: Did you miss? Use an Expertise Die and add it to your attack roll (not damage).
Pushing Attack: Hit a guy. They make a Strength save or get pushed 15'.
Rally: Bonus action; an ally gets your Die + Cha mod temp HPs.
Riposte: A guy misses you. You get to attack back as a reaction.
Spring Away: Add a Die to your AC while you're moving this turn.
Sweeping Attack: Hit a guy. Choose a second guy. If you'd hit the second guy, too, it takes your Expertise Die in damage.
Trip Attack: Hit a guy. Strength save or get knocked down.

Morty
2014-07-06, 05:06 PM
I've never understood why Fighters can't have stuff that exclusively belongs to them. They're highly-trained, highly-athletic exemplars of martial prowess. Someone else wants to fight like them? Suck it up and multiclass. :smallsmile:

You're not getting my point, and possibly also HeadlessMermaid's point, if she's making the same one. My point is - fighters should have special moves that represent their superiority in terms of armed combat and that no other weapon user can replicate without multi-classing into fighter. But they should be actually special, with things like disarming, distracting and feinting being basic moves anyone can do. After all, fighters aren't the only weapon users. And even fighters really shouldn't have to pick all those from a list.


Commander's Strike: Forego one of your attacks to give a buddy an attack.
Disarming Attack: Hit a guy. They make a Strength save or drop their stuff.
Distracting Strike: Hit a guy. The next time a buddy attacks he has Advantage.
Feinting Attack: Bonus action. Choose a target, you have advantage against them for your attack.
Goading Attack: Hit a guy, and the guy makes a Wisdom save. Failure means he has Disadvantage to attack anyone but you.
Lunging Attack: Add +5' to reach. booo-ring
Maneuvering Attack: Hit a guy. An ally can move half its speed right now without provoking OAs from your target.
Menacing Attack: Hit a guy. Guy needs to make a Wisdom save; failure = he's Frightened of you.
Parry: A guy hits you. Roll your Expertise Die + Dex mod and reduce the damage.
Precision Attack: Did you miss? Use an Expertise Die and add it to your attack roll (not damage).
Pushing Attack: Hit a guy. They make a Strength save or get pushed 15'.
Rally: Bonus action; an ally gets your Die + Cha mod temp HPs.
Riposte: A guy misses you. You get to attack back as a reaction.
Spring Away: Add a Die to your AC while you're moving this turn.
Sweeping Attack: Hit a guy. Choose a second guy. If you'd hit the second guy, too, it takes your Expertise Die in damage.
Trip Attack: Hit a guy. Strength save or get knocked down.


Yeah, that's sad. They're all fine combat moves - they just shouldn't require you to take a specific fighter subclass and pick them out.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-06, 05:12 PM
For the record, here's the maneuver list. All of them cost a die, but most will let you decide whether or not to spend the die after a successful hit. The Expertise Die (starting at d8 scaling to d12) adds to damage, too.

So do fighters get all of these? Or do they have to pick a small amount and be unable to use the rest?

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-06, 05:14 PM
Remember that almost every player will interpret HP as physical damage, just like in every other edition of D&D :smallamused:

I'm not sure if that is sarcasm but we have been over this on the forum many times. Not everyone thinks of it as just physical wounds and alot of people don't really think about it. Also HP has never been just one thing.

I really wish people would stop throwing crap at abwall and hoping that it sticks.



Plus a caster does not get his spell slots back during a short rest. I would expect 3 or 4 short rests in a day.

Well... Wizards kinda do at whatever level allows them to gain some back.

obryn
2014-07-06, 05:17 PM
Yeah, that's sad. They're all fine combat moves - they just shouldn't require you to take a specific fighter subclass and pick them out.
Some are and some aren't. I agree I'd like them to be much better. Hilariously, these are all about as strong as 4e At-Wills, but you need to spend your rest-limited resources for them. :smallsigh:

In other words, while I understand your point, if these are the Fighter's shtick, then they should belong to the Fighter, no matter how tepid they are.


So do fighters get all of these? Or do they have to pick a small amount and be unable to use the rest?
They start out with 3. By the time they hit 17th level they have the distinct privilege of picking up their 9th-favorite out of the list, because there are no higher-level maneuvers to pick from.

Morty
2014-07-06, 05:37 PM
Some are and some aren't. I agree I'd like them to be much better. Hilariously, these are all about as strong as 4e At-Wills, but you need to spend your rest-limited resources for them. :smallsigh:

Yeah, some of those I could actually see as special abilities you pick, if low-level ones. The frightening one, for instance, or giving temporary hit points.


In other words, while I understand your point, if these are the Fighter's shtick, then they should belong to the Fighter, no matter how tepid they are.

That is true. In absence of anything better, they should remain the Fighter's purview.

obryn
2014-07-06, 06:40 PM
Yeah, some of those I could actually see as special abilities you pick, if low-level ones. The frightening one, for instance, or giving temporary hit points.
Yeah, Menacing is so much better than, say, Goading Strike, it's silly. Lots of them - including Goading Strike and the rather pathetic Pushing Strike - shouldn't require a Save at all, IMO.

Adding straight to the damage roll is a nice boost at least.

Still, I know this is supposed to be "4e Fighter" and "4e Warlord" but it's just so ... blah. I'm extremely disappointed in the lack of higher-level choices, since like I said, you basically just pick up more maneuvers you didn't want to pick last time.

It will probably see more revisions, I hope.

da_chicken
2014-07-06, 08:15 PM
Why is that a concern? Make a few simple rules which apply to humanoids who move with their legs, see with their eyes and hear with their ears. And then make it clear that, for different targets, common sense applies and the DM is the judge of that.

- I'm aiming for the dire bat's ear!
- You hit, it's deafened and loses its blindsight for two rounds.

- I'm aiming for the beholder's eyestalk!
- You hit, it loses said eyestalk's ray for a round.

- I'm aiming for the centipede's leg!
- You hit, nothing else happens.

I think the only general rule needed is the trade-off. What must you do to make a called shot? Take a penalty to attack or damage? Have disadvantage for the attack roll? Are they triggered automatically on crits? There are many options.

[And apparently none of them is being used, since we only get a maneuver-based archetype exclusively for fighters?? Did I get that right?]

The problem with called shots is the same problem they always have. There are only two cases:


Called shots are worth the penalty. In this case, it is always worth it to call a shot and the called shot rule effectively replaces the normal combat rule, circumventing all those HP and defenses the game put there to make the creature a challenge.
Called shots are not worth the penalty. In this case, the called shot rule might as well not exist because it is at best useless and at worst a trap.


The third case where called shots are sometimes good and sometimes bad just never happens realistically except for rules that are purely situational.

Sunder with an adamantine weapon in 3.x, for example, is so good you have no reason not to do it every encounter. Trip with a half-ogre or goliath with a spiked chain is similarly set up. Disarm is essentially just bad sunder, however. Bull rush, being very situational, is the only action that's really good for the game. I think that's why Shove in 5e works like Bull Rush and not Trip, and standing up having no particular AoO penalty is good, too.

IMX, the only time called shots are acceptable is when the monster entry calls for it (e.g., hydra, beholder), or the environment calls for it (e.g., cutting a rope bridge, breaking open oil barrels).

obryn
2014-07-06, 08:28 PM
The problem with called shots is the same problem they always have. There are only two cases:


Called shots are worth the penalty. In this case, it is always worth it to call a shot and the called shot rule effectively replaces the normal combat rule, circumventing all those HP and defenses the game put there to make the creature a challenge.
Called shots are not worth the penalty. In this case, the called shot rule might as well not exist because it is at best useless and at worst a trap.


The third case where called shots are sometimes good and sometimes bad just never happens realistically except for rules that are purely situational.

Sunder with an adamantine weapon in 3.x, for example, is so good you have no reason not to do it every encounter. Trip with a half-ogre or goliath with a spiked chain is similarly set up. Disarm is essentially just bad sunder, however. Bull rush, being very situational, is the only action that's really good for the game. I think that's why Shove in 5e works like Bull Rush and not Trip, and standing up having no particular AoO penalty is good, too.

IMX, the only time called shots are acceptable is when the monster entry calls for it (e.g., hydra, beholder), or the environment calls for it (e.g., cutting a rope bridge, breaking open oil barrels).
Just wanted to say, I agree with this entirely.

It's why I prefer a resource-based system. It's the surest way to allow for powerful effects without spammability. It worked very well in 4e. I don't know that it will work well in 5e, since I can see it falling prey to the Psionic Spamming Problem of just hitting the same button again and again.

captpike
2014-07-06, 10:14 PM
given several essentials classes had the whole "pick your 10th favorite power from this list" problem I was hoping they had fixed it.

the first two are cool, the third is situational, the fourth is hardly worth writing down, any past that are not worth even picking.


It's not nothing, but it'd be far better if there was a handful of basic combat actions anyone can perform, and the Fighter maneuvers were, you know, actual special moves that set the fighters apart from regular combatants. Those we saw a while ago in a blog post were, shall we say, rudimentary.

that and I would hardly call the fighter a class if all it could do is stuff everyone can do.

that is one of my problems with 3e, if two classes share a spell list, they are in fact not different classes.

a class should give you cool stuff that you can not get from anything else.

HeadlessMermaid
2014-07-06, 10:30 PM
IMX, the only time called shots are acceptable is when the monster entry calls for it (e.g., hydra, beholder), or the environment calls for it (e.g., cutting a rope bridge, breaking open oil barrels).
Your concerns are valid. I've played 3.5 with a variety of called shots houserules, each with pros and cons (some of which you've mentioned). In the end, we had them trigger automatically on crits, without penalties, and the effect scaled with BAB. [Note that we also tweaked the crit rules, so that normally immune creatures might or might nor be subject to this or that effect. Or sneak attacks. Or critical hits in the first place. It was complicated. :smalltongue:] It worked well, mechanically and flavour-wise. However, it took some agency away from the players. They couldn't say in advance "I try to do this", they only decided what to do after the dice were rolled. (So I guess they weren't "called" shots, as such...) The above wouldn't be compatible with 5e out of the box (no BAB, for one...), but maybe we can work out an equivalent. We'll see once the books come out.

As for combat options (trip, sunder, etc), I believe they ended up either too good or too awful in 3.5 due to the game design. Some achieved nothing worthwhile, ever. Some were doomed to fail without feats. And some, with a specialized build, were so obviously better than anything else that it was inconceivable not to use them all the time.

But consider: what if a martial character could attempt to trip/grapple etc an opponent WITHOUT spending feats, but also without dealing/triggering damage at the same time? And what if the effect of each combat option was meaningful, but not unconditionally better than just attacking? Then each would be a valid situational tactical option. "What's more important this round? Dealing more damage to my opponent? Preventing him from attacking again? Preventing him from fleeing/pursuing the caster? Making him vulnerable to the attacks of my buddies? Why, I'll have to choose." And if you didn't want to bother with tactical combat, you could easily go for damage every time. Everyone would be happy.

I think that 5e came close to that golden rule with Grapple and Shove (Shove could be better, but eh), which is very cool. This also applies (from as far as I can tell) to the maneuvers in the fighter's archetype, regarding Disarm and Feint. But they are maneuvers, they aren't for everyone, and even the fighter needs to spend resources. And that, I find less cool. Why shouldn't all rogues be able to feint? Why shouldn't all paladins be able to disarm? Or all fighters, for that matter?


Sunder with an adamantine weapon in 3.x, for example, is so good you have no reason not to do it every encounter.
Well that's the first time I hear that. In my experience, players avoid sunder like the plague, because they don't want to destroy their own loot.

@ obryn: Thanks for the maneuvers list, your descriptions are concise and hilarious. :smallbiggrin: