D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Draz74]

Also: PA D&D Next Podcast Part 2

So, I listened through this and there were a few interesting tidbits that weren't already obvious to me. Foremost among these was the info that "only daily powers will provoke saving throws." (Later softened to allow that encounter-limited abilities might provoke saves too.) Apparently this is a "streamlining" feature to "speed up" the game, since apparently saving throws take a long time compared to attacks.

This helps alleviate concerns about six different saves vs. just one ability score that determines Save DCs. (But it's not enough IMO, since Wizards tend to have a LOT of "daily abilities" to draw from.)

But on the other hand, it makes me more concerned about whether warrior types will really have a proper ability to provoke saves, since they don't tend to be given a lot of daily abilities. For example, I thought bull rush and trip were going to be things that provoke Strength Saves. So, what, bull rush and trip are 1/encounter things now?

The other major revelation in the podcast is that they're planning to introduce "traditions" into the Wizard class, which will be subclasses just like the other classes get (Domains, Fighting Styles, and Schemes). I'm not sure what traditional D&D things they're planning to include in Traditions, other than the obvious Wu Jen. I hope Traditions don't have as far-reaching effects as Domains ... like a pre-determined package of Spells Prepared ...

So in the current draft, there are actually basically three things you need to choose to determine your character's combat build: class, sub-class, and specialty. In some ways, I actually think this has the potential to make for an elegant game, if it's done right. For example, if a Fighter with the right Fighting Style and Specialty can make an excellent Warlord, Swashbuckler, etc., without a need for separate classes for those archetypes. On the other hand, the three-wide design space kind of shoots WotC's stated goal of super-duper-simple character creation for newbies in the foot.

Ah, so it's allowed by the terms? Good to know.

Yeah, they softened their stance on this a while ago.

Are specializations the same as traits?

Traits are minor non-combat, non-skill abilities granted by backgrounds. Specializations are packages of feats.

Thoughts on spells in general;

- I wish that spells scaled with caster level to some degree. If I understand it right, a level 1 Cleric and a level 20 heal the same amount casting Cure Light Wounds, which seems odd to me.

They've talked about the possibility that spells will scale, not with caster level, but with spell slot used. So the L20 Cleric's spell will be different, but only if he uses a higher-level slot for it. I don't know if they're going to stick with that idea or not.

It strikes me as a good solution game-design-wise, but awkward if it involves using tons of book space to add additional details to every spell. The Spells chapter already represents a silly-disproportionate fraction of the rules.

- Also, it looks like it's way too easy for Wizards to target every single stat, and they'll be able to hit a character's lowest one most of the time without a problem. The difficulty for a saving throw increases with the Wizard's level and Int mod, but that Fighter's Wisdom is probably always going to be rubbish. Saving throws don't scale beyond a dump attribute, and spell DCs scale with both level and a Wizard's primary stat.

Yup.

- I feel like there are too many damage types. Sort of a commentary in general, but the limited spells in the playtest alone can cause thunder, radiant, necrotic, poison, force, lightning, holy, unholy, cold, acid, and fire damage. Maybe it's just me, but that seems a bit much.

This is kind of a part of the rules that has to be expanded from the get-go, rather than expanded gradually through splatbooks and subsystems. So that things like resistances are judged properly in their power.

Apparently, nonabilities have been scrapped entirely for now. Which might not been have the worst idea. I think this is actually something unique to 3rd Edition that is found in no other system I know off.

Mutants & Masterminds has it too, for what it's worth. Oh, and 2e D&D did it as well.

I'll be honest - this looks a lot more like a game I'd be interested in. Lots of changes for the better.

Yeah, there's a lot of things I'm still not loving about 5e -- especially the focus on ability scores in general, which I'm pretty sure isn't going to change -- but they're definitely improving it a lot from playtest package to playtest package.

Does anyone else see this as a problem.

STR High
CON High
DEX (almost unneeded)
INT (Can be low, get a +1 from high elf either way)
WIS (unneeded)
CHA (unneeded)

I'm not liking the dependency levels of ability scores in general. Especially not the return to "everybody needs CON as their second-highest stat."

This example doesn't strike me as much worse than any other build.

the recharge should also be changed to end of turn rather then the start, this way you can chose to react and lose your next turn's action rather then lose your turn's action and hopefully react.

Interesting ...

but one thing stood out: thieves' cant? really? in proper class design space rather then a background?

True dat.