-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
Isn't Magic Missile still a 1st-level spell that can only be used a few times?
*checks again*
Wow, they really did make it a cantrip. If they keep metamagic and metamagic cost reducers, imagine an at-will Fell Drain Magic Missile as a cantrip. This seems problematic.
They don't hsve negative levels so Fell drain isn't possible.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starbuck_II
They don't hsve negative levels so Fell drain isn't possible.
Well, I guess that's good.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
1337 b4k4
If I read the rules correctly (I don't have them in front of me right now), magic missile isn't baked in to the MU. IIRC, MUs get a limited number of at-will spell slots (2 maybe?) that they can fill from a limited list. The playtest MU took a background or theme that gave them an expanded at-will set.
You are correct, it isn't baked, but as the playtest progresses, taking an Auto-hit Cantrip at 1st level that scales might be worth it. Granted it might not be worth it at the much higher levels. I just think that it could be a cool way to incorporate a bit more into the already starved Fighter.
Especially if the Common tactics for a Wizard are going to be RoF until Max Range of MM and pelt them until they get with in a reasonable range to RoF them back out. Wizards always did have more tricks than Fighters though.
I'm really hoping that Fighters get some good Maneuvers, then again, I think a lot of us are waiting to see what happens!
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Does flanking grant Advantage? Can't find it anywhere and we're playtesting this weekend. My rogue player is going crazy trying to figure it out. :smallbiggrin:
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
I think that would be up to the DM. I'd say that would be one of the perfect situations to grant it, as you definitely have the Advantage!
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
I told him I'd grant it either way, I was just looking for anything in the documents that backs me up. He's happy either way, lol.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The J Pizzel
I told him I'd grant it either way, I was just looking for anything in the documents that backs me up. He's happy either way, lol.
The playtest doc does not have flanking granting advantage. By RAW the only way a rogue will get sneak attack is by spending every other round using his round to run away and hide.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seerow
The playtest doc does not have flanking granting advantage. By RAW the only way a rogue will get sneak attack is by spending every other round using his round to run away and hide.
Yeah....I'm not digging that. We shall see. For what it's worth that's how the Rogue in Dragon Age works and no one likes it. He has to move to a new enemy and roll sneak vs. seeing to get it.
I might do that!
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Argument could be made that the Playtest Hafling Rogue could Hide behind the Dwarves for Advantage.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Krotchrot
Argument could be made that the Playtest Hafling Rogue could Hide behind the Dwarves for Advantage.
Yes, he could. However, it takes an action to hide, and attacking causes you to stop being hidden at the end of your turn. So every other turn you have to spend your action hiding again.
Assuming that you even can do that. I'm pretty sure the stealth rules say something like you can't hide when you can be seen, so it may not even be possible to hide in combat. So the Rogue is pretty much stuck unless the DM lets him MTP up a feint check or something.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Something I've pondered recently regarding the fighter / wizard disparity ...
It seems to me that when a typical vancian wizard levels up and gets new spell slots they effectively get new "ability slots" (to use a generic term) and get to pick from a list that is rather vast and varied in both potency and variety.
Yet when a fighter levels up they might get a single additional "ability slot" (aka feat) and get to pick from a much shorter list that is far less varied in both potency and variety.
When I started thinking about the fighter / wizard disparity like this it became a forehead smacker moment for me that, duh, the wizard gets way more "ability slots" than the fighter over their careers and the things they can fill those slots with are vastly different in variety and potency. I never before really equated spell slots and lists of potential spells with feats and lists of potential feats. I feel pretty dumb for not equating the two.
I think this is what fourth edition TRIED to even out but unfortunately their implementation left a lot to be desired.
I wish WotC luck with fifth edition. I really do.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kerrin
Something I've pondered recently regarding the fighter / wizard disparity ...
It seems to me that when a typical vancian wizard levels up and gets new spell slots they effectively get new "ability slots" (to use a generic term) and get to pick from a list that is rather vast and varied in both potency and variety.
Yet when a fighter levels up they might get a single additional "ability slot" (aka feat) and get to pick from a much shorter list that is far less varied in both potency and variety.
When I started thinking about the fighter / wizard disparity like this it became a forehead smacker moment for me that, duh, the wizard gets way more "ability slots" than the fighter over their careers and the things they can fill those slots with are vastly different in variety and potency. I never before really equated spell slots and lists of potential spells with feats and lists of potential feats. I feel pretty dumb for not equating the two.
I think this is what fourth edition TRIED to even out but unfortunately their implementation left a lot to be desired.
I wish WotC luck with fifth edition. I really do.
Well it makes sense not to equate feats and spell slots. After all, Wizards get feats too. In fact, they get 12 of them, only 6 less than the Fighter gets. If Feats were as potent as spells, and Wizards were limited in spell slots to the same number as Fighters get feats, there would STILL be a disparity, because feats aren't a mechanic that can replace a resource/ability system for classes.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The J Pizzel
Does flanking grant Advantage? Can't find it anywhere and we're playtesting this weekend. My rogue player is going crazy trying to figure it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The J Pizzel
I told him I'd grant it either way, I was just looking for anything in the documents that backs me up. He's happy either way, lol.
I'd be careful at allowing "flanking" to grant advantage, for two reasons. First, the rogue's sneak attack is (currently) pretty potent once he hits level 2, roughly equaling the damage output of the fighter (making him feel even less special). Secondly, it therefore reasons that monsters should get advantage for flanking as well.
Given the wide range of hitpoints in the Caves of Chaos (monsters tend to either have less than 10 or greater than 50) the bonus sneak attack dice aren't going to do a heck of a lot of good against a kobold or goblin, but those same kobolds and goblins are going to be much more deadlier.
If you wanted to houserule something, do something like allow characters to make a Charisma or Dexterity check (DC 10) to feint in combat as a free action. Success grants them advantage, failure grants them disadvantage.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ashdate
Given the wide range of hitpoints in the Caves of Chaos (monsters tend to either have less than 10 or greater than 50) the bonus sneak attack dice aren't going to do a heck of a lot of good against a kobold or goblin, but those same kobolds and goblins are going to be much more deadlier.
Which reminds me of another glaring issue with 5th edition; they kept the bloated HP of 4th edition, but removed most of the extra damage for non-casters. If you compare the minotaur from 3.5 and the one from the playtest, they have similar stats (same AC, close attack bonus, etc) except the one in the playtest has 152 hp instead of 39...
Admittedly, minotaurs in 3.5 where pretty easy to kill, but I think that's shifting the balance a bit too far the other way.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dead_Jester
Which reminds me of another glaring issue with 5th edition; they kept the bloated HP of 4th edition, but removed most of the extra damage for non-casters. If you compare the minotaur from 3.5 and the one from the playtest, they have similar stats (same AC, close attack bonus, etc) except the one in the playtest has 152 hp instead of 39...
Admittedly, minotaurs in 3.5 where pretty easy to kill, but I think that's shifting the balance a bit too far the other way.
That may be a result of the lack of scaling modifiers. So far we haven't seen much of anything that lets you add your level to skill checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. It seems like the only thing that scales with level is hit points and damage output. It's possible that they're waiting to add those later, but they may end up relying entirely on ability score advances for that sort of thing.
I would support such a change (if that's what they're doing). It gets rid of the ridiculous character optimzation focus that 3.5 and 4e had, and lets players decide on the abilities they want to add. It also means that you can have high-level and low-level characters in the same party (due to character death or other shenanigans) and there won't be the huge discrepancy there was in earlier editions.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
I believe the only thing that can be done to even the leveling field between Mundanes and Magic users is to give Mundanes their own type of magic or magic-like abilities. Take a tip from the Book of Nine Swords for decent mundanes.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Shadow Lord
I believe the only thing that can be done to even the leveling field between Mundanes and Magic users is to give Mundanes their own type of magic or magic-like abilities. Take a tip from the Book of Nine Swords for decent mundanes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me, earlier
The real reason why nobody can agree on this issue is because there are three simultaneous assumptions that the community holds regarding the magic/mundane split.
- Magic should be capable of doing amazing, superhuman things.
- Mundane characters shouldn't be capable of doing anything an ordinary human couldn't do without sufficient training.
- Magic characters and Mundane characters are balanced against one another and each one can contribute equally.
Pick any two. You can buff mundanes, nerf casters, or throw balance out the window. And no matter which of the three solutions you choose, a third of the players will hate you for it.
Each of the three solutions are valid, by the way, they just produce very different games.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
I'd much prefer if the 'basic game' (sans 'modules') had a wizard who had a spell slot at 1st level, and a spell slot every subsequent even level, who gained one spell at each level, but only off they have access to a spell book that contains the desired spell, and could only prepare each spell once for a given load-out. Make spell slots non-level dependent, so you don't have 3rd level slots and 1st level slot, just slots. And either have scaling spells that grow from 1st level through to whatever level core caps out at, or maintain spell levels as a way to determine when the wizard is able to learn the spell.
I think with that point being the default, then other classes balanced with that (though not necessarily using that form of vancian if they are casters, if they use vancian at all for other casters), and more complex/powerful stuff can be module'd on.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Part of the problem is that as the game grew and changed over the editions, they changed the conditions by which magic users acquired and used spells. If you look at old editions, magic users didn't get free spells at level up (or if they did, it was one spell and it was random), they had chances of failure to learn spells, and gaining spells required seeking out other magic users, or ancient libraries and tomes. And even if you found a magic user with a spell you wanted, by the DMG it would be a very expensive and difficult process to get that spell. Additionally, while spells were powerful, wizards had plenty of ways to lose spells. Originally, when initiative was done in groups, magic users had to declare their spells before initiative was rolled for the round. If they were successfully attacked before they got their turn, they lost the spell and action for that round with no save. Later in AD&D when individual initiative was first introduced, spells had casting times that still allowed them to run the risk of losing a spell to an attack. Additionally, while many mundane spells might have been easy to cast, most of the more powerful spells had expensive and rare ingredients that were required. Finally, after level 10, the nature of the game was supposed to change and move away from individual adventure and combat and into larger stronghold and kingdom management. As each of these components were dropped or worked around, it's no wonder the wizard seemed to outshine their more mundane counterparts.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quick note on hiding from my play-test group of 6 including 2 halflings.
They worked it out that they get advantage if they start their turn hidden form the enemy, the argued that being out of sight or in another room was hidden from the enemies in the other room or around the corner. So they did alot of pop up sniping or springing attacking to get combat advantage.
This helped them without also jumping up the mobs dmg.
Eventually I ruled that advantage was granted if 3 or more people threatened one individual, kind of a bonus for ganging up on a single target but not as easy as flanking is to get, especially since everyone and move attack move, and there is no AOO.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
In regards to gaining Advantage from flanking, if its the player being flanked by two enemies, maybe you could simply give the player disadvantage rather than the creatures advantage? I haven't had a chance to try the play-test yet, and probably won't as my gaming group has splintered a bit, but that seems a simple enough way to handle matters without stacking the odds too highly against the PC's.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
NOOOOOOOOOO.
I lost the page while I was filling out the survey and now it tells me I have already completed it...BAAAH :smallfurious:
I finished it yesterday. I didn't run their module, but a quick pick-up game at a party. We had 5 players;
Older Gentleman who hadn't played since AD&D- Wizard
College Age who had played 3.X once, but it only once or twice, and quite some time ago.- Dward Cleric
3 younger students who play 3.X currently, but have never heard of "Optimization"
The rest
Notes: For the monsters, the buildup of AC isn't listed. So a "Touch" attack means I have to go through and find their armor bonus and shield bonus, and subtract that from the total AC. Or if they have Natural Armor, I have more math to do. I'd like it if they listed the buildup of the AC like they did in 3.5 monsters
The fighter...yeah. When he did hit, it was nice to have a bunch of damage, but the clerics were already stealing the show. When fighting 1hp monsters (4E "Minions"), the extra damage was worthless. Sure he auto-kills them, but so does the wizard, from a safe distance.
The wizard spammed magic missile from a distance, which wasn't a bad thing, but the consistent damage was nice. The Clerics ran out of healing(Yep, both clerics. I think it might've been a bad dice night). I think they need one bonus slot just for healing or something, since there isn't a minor healing spell.
The Slayer Theme. As a theme, I'm assuming other classes will be able to take it. So for people who get a really high ability mod, this theme is a must. When you remember it, it dominates.
The Dark Priest- Writhing Darkness needs to specify duration, or if it goes away when he isn't next to the alter, or if the "Worms" can be attacked and destroyed. It was doing serious damage when the whole party is good, and most of them are trying to run up and hit him in melee.
*facepalm* :smallredface:
It didn't come up too much.
Advantage/Disadvantage: Has anyone done the math on this yet? How is it compared to a static bonus in increasing your chances of success? It felt...weird giving out the advantage a lot. Is it supposed to be a common thing? Or a special thing?
Other: It was fun. Took a little while for people to understand their sheets and figure out what they could do(30min). I would say it was easy to teach, however, my players got lost on the sheets. Having the AC and HP in the corner was nice, but it took them awhile to find it, maybe make it bigger?
The Older Gentleman gave me some feedback: Being able to cast minor spells is about the best change. "A Wizard finally feels like a wizard, not 'running out of magic'." I share the same opinion. The Wizard isn't any better than anyone else by using the cantrips, its just a magical way of doing less damage than the fighter. In the end, it isn't broken, and it adds flavor.
The College Aged one is apparently wanting to be a repeat customer, having enjoyed it, except for some disorganized interactiveness from other players. At one point one of the younger players left, so he took over both clerics, and discovered that he should spam radiant lance.
So, besides the group crashing the boat on Gilligan's Island, Melting their hand into the side of the boat while trying to repair it, trying to use a monkey to pry the wizard's arms out, building seeweed huts, and running into the forest fire, the group did really well. It was a good experience. :smallsmile:
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
I don't think there is a Touch AC anymore.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Madara
Notes: For the monsters, the buildup of AC isn't listed. So a "Touch" attack means I have to go through and find their armor bonus and shield bonus, and subtract that from the total AC. Or if they have Natural Armor, I have more math to do. I'd like it if they listed the buildup of the AC like they did in 3.5 monsters
There is no Touch AC so far. Everything just attacks straight AC, including spells, in the pursuit of simplicity.
I think Touch AC basically operates in the same game space as a Dex or Reflex Save. We only need one, IMO.
Now, for the Dark Priest, remember that any ranged attacks get Disadvantage if someone is adjacent to you - including ranged magic attacks. No OA's though.
-O
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Journal of Part 1 of our playtest experience is up. Much fun was had, though not all of it was necessarily to the credit of the playtest rules. :smalltongue:
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
This is optimism inspiring, assuming that there is at least some gain of AC and attack for martial classes.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knaight
This is optimism inspiring, assuming that there is at least
some gain of AC and attack for martial classes.
I am unsure about this news.
On the one hand, it sounds good, in theory. On the other hand, if the modifiers are very low compared to the randomness of the d20, it seems like it will make the whole system extremely swingy. And, to be quite honest, I want a 10th level fighter or rogue to hit kobolds, goblins, and orcs significantly more often than a 1st level fighter or rogue.
One of the side effects of this philosophy are some really weird DCs for common tasks. Like, breaking out of manacles is DC 19 strength or DC 21 dexterity. It seems to me that everyone - even the puny wizard - can break them given a little time, no? Not that this is a game-breaker, it's just ... weird.
(also, I put up my own playtest report from last night ...)
-O
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
obryn
On the one hand, it sounds good, in theory. On the other hand, if the modifiers are very low compared to the randomness of the d20, it seems like it will make the whole system extremely swingy. And, to be quite honest, I want a 10th level fighter or rogue to hit kobolds, goblins, and orcs significantly more often than a 1st level fighter or rogue.
I assume that fighters, at least, will be getting some bonus.
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knaight
I assume that fighters, at least, will be getting some bonus.
I agree; I think actually everyone will - wizards and clerics will need it for their magic attacks, and you can't hose rogues that badly on attack rolls. But near as I can tell, it's not happening in the first 3 levels, unless they left that part out of the playtest advancement. Even a +1 every 4 levels is really slow.
-O
-
Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
obryn
I agree; I think actually everyone will - wizards and clerics will need it for their magic attacks, and you can't hose rogues that badly on attack rolls. But near as I can tell, it's not happening in the first 3 levels, unless they left that part out of the playtest advancement. Even a +1 every 4 levels is really slow.
-O
They might have left it out because it's connected to feat option that weren't taken.