Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!

[Conundrum]

Intuition...Thats not something I think one can put a score on. Also how does intuition relate to Clerical magic (I made charisma the source of clerical magic in my games).

I think it's mostly just considered that high-up religious people are "wise" while wizards are "smart".

[Scowling Dragon]

Again: How does one measure smartness? And how is being wise related to having a diety?

"I worship the god of madness. Therefore I am wise".

I made it by their force of personality. Since religious priests and stuff need to be charismatic in one form or another to preach.

Or you could... I dunno, remove attribute scores? I don't think they actually add all that much to the game: You buff your primary stat at every opportunity, period, buffing your most important defensive stats, in order, when you can't buff a better stat any further. Everything else is just to meet requirements for other things you want. Reality is for any one kind of build you want to make there's precisely one optimal ability score array. You can provide the same thing much more transparently.

Well thats dull. You might as well just rename fire

"Damage type 1" and HP "Count Number".

and Im trying to make every stat important.

Every Stat has a save associated with it. Con also gives an HP bonus but it doesn't help with any skills.

So its a balance between accuracy and damage.

[Aidan305]

I don't like the inflated hit points at 1st level. I've always been of the opinion that if you want to start with more durable characters, start at a higher level.

Apparently they've been artificially inflated for the purpose of playtesting. They're supposed to be lower.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Well thats dull. You might as well just rename fire

"Damage type 1" and HP "Count Number".

and Im trying to make every stat important.

It doesn't really have to be: You can still have all the different variations between builds, you can just tweak the numbers so basically it works as if you had chosen the optimal ability score arrangement. All removing ability scores does is take away trap options like "I'm gonna play a Barbarian with 18 CHA!"

[Kurald Galain]

Intuition...Thats not something I think one can put a score on. Also how does intuition relate to Clerical magic (I made charisma the source of clerical magic in my games).

Yeah, that's why no RPG other than D&D (or D&D clones) gives you a wisdom score.

Wisdom wasn't related to perception in 2E; it was just "the caster stat for non-wizards". It became the stat for perception/insight in 3E just to make it less of a dump stat for people who weren't a divine caster. And the result is that clerics became better trapfinders than rogues are. It's weird but it's legacy, it's really not going to disappear now.

[DrBurr]

Yeah, that's why no RPG other than D&D (or D&D clones) gives you a wisdom score.

Wisdom wasn't related to perception in 2E; it was just "the caster stat for non-wizards". It became the stat for perception/insight in 3E just to make it less of a dump stat for people who weren't a divine caster. And the result is that clerics became better trapfinders than rogues are. It's weird but it's legacy, it's really not going to disappear now.

Just don't let the cleric near the trap he might lose a hand :P

So apparently Mearls is advising people to houserule the game to fit our own flavors, time to screw over my players

[WitchSlayer]

I kind of think having every stat having a save associated with it is sort of a bad idea. Also I don't see what's the matter with having 16ish HP at first level, it just makes combat less swingy

[Saph]

Well, some people like swingy. 1st-level combat in pre-4e D&D is really exciting if you know what you're doing - in a lot of ways it feels much more like a duel with lethal weapons than higher-level combats do.

If you make starting HP high, then you get less variety between the levels and you can't use the system for the high-lethality low-level style of gaming. On the other hand, if you make starting HP low, then all the people who don't like high-lethality low-level play will get upset when they get one-shotted.

Analysis of Starting Hit Points for Playtest Characters

The pre-gen D&D Next characters have between 16 and 20 HP, with the average being 17.2 HP. By contrast, the average HP of a starting 3.5 character is about 9-10, while the average for a 4e character is around 24-25 (I think, it's been a while since I've made one). This discounts feats like Toughness.

So mathematically, the HP of a 1st-level D&D Next character seems to have been set almost exactly halfway between what it would have been in 3.0/3.5 and what it would have been in 4e.

edit: Actually, I'm getting interested now. Could someone more familiar than me with pre-3e D&D figure out the average starting HP of a 1st-level character in the earlier editions? Would be interesting to see the progression.

[Kurald Galain]

edit: Actually, I'm getting interested now. Could someone more familiar than me with pre-3e D&D figure out the average starting HP of a 1st-level character in the earlier editions? Would be interesting to see the progression.

Easy enough. 1d4 for wizard, 1d6 for rogue, 1d8 for cleric, 1d10 for fighter. By the rules you actually had to roll that, so you could have one hit point, although a common houserule was max HP for first level. Then, add +1 for con 15, +2 for con 16, +3 and +4 for con 17 and 18 if you're a fighter otherwise it doesn't count.

So about 5 hp on average, I'd say. People who didn't want to be so fragile would simply start a few levels higher; this just depends on what style of campaign you want. And mind you, the earlier editions explicitly gave XP for good ideas and roleplaying, so at level one you simply were not supposed to solve your problems through combat.

[WitchSlayer]

... so at level one you simply were not supposed to solve your problems through combat.

...And by doing so you'd get better at combat. Although this is a problem with D&D and all RPGs in general. Also higher levels adds a lot more things than more HP. All I'm saying is that 10-20 HP isn't THAT much. All it really means is is that you're decent at your job so you can actually reasonably be an adventurer rather than someone who should rather not follow that line of work.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Then, add +1 for con 15, +2 for con 16, +3 and +4 for con 17 and 18 if you're a fighter otherwise it doesn't count.

Non-fighters actually can get bonus HP from a 15 or 16 Con, it just caps at +2.

[Scowling Dragon]

"I'm gonna play a Barbarian with 18 CHA!"

Well then your an idiot for doing that (Unless you go the intimidation route. Im also making more uses for the intimidate skill). Why not JUST give the best possible ultimate mega cheese super mega ultra pre made character sheets then? That way we can ensure that nobody ever makes a unbalanced build.

I think you give new players too little credit. As a new player, I understood that dodge wasn't worthwhile. There is no need to hardwire things the "best" way (Which is subjective).

[Yora]

I like the HP system. Start good but slow growth after that. That makes 1st and 2nd level not so unpredictable and safer, but limits bloat on the long run.

[hamlet]

OK, I know I'm late since there's like four pages since I last posted, and I've not had the chance to read the entire thing with a strong eye, but . . .

Very first impressions.

I'm happy to see a stronger 3.5 mechanic coming back. Despite all the negative things I'll say about 3.5, I think it was a good system that had some unfortunate tendancies.

I'm not sure that I like the seeming fact that magic is going to be even more important. Wizards not only get more spell slots per day, but they get what amounts to, in an uncharitable moment, "lazers, pew pew!" at will. I really think that WOTC should have gone for one or the other, not both.

Better yet, you can have both, but the cantrips are largely just minor utility spells, like detect magic, read magic, and things like that, and NOT magic missile and Ray of Frost which are both too powerful to be unlimited uses per day spells IMO.

I'm not seeing what they're doing to give fighters parity with wizards. Not saying it's not there, I'm just not seeing what brings them in line, or what brings wizards down a little.

Spell memorization times is good to see back, but 1 minute per spell level is TOO SHORT. Much too short. It turns a real concern into not even a minor inconvenience. The time needs to be at least ten times that.

The bestiary is enlightening in some ways. LOTS of HP's on non-baby monsters. Things other than base kobolds and goblins (i.e., baby monsters for the purposes of I have nothing else to call them after precisely zero sleep today) have oodles of HP's, and I'm guessing that as characters level, so will they. Baseline minotaur has tripple digit HP's. Number inflation continues to plague us.

Or, and I seriously doubt this, PC's will have comparitively fewer HP's than monsters, which would be a phenomenal twist for WOTC and actually kind of neat.


I see nothing here, yet, about how I can have a simple version of the game along side the full version.

Can't tell if it has an "old school" feel, though I sort of suspect that the designers don't know what old school really feels like anymore. But that remains to be seen.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Well then your an idiot for doing that (Unless you go the intimidation route. Im also making more uses for the intimidate skill). Why not JUST give the best possible ultimate mega cheese super mega ultra pre made character sheets then? That way we can ensure that nobody ever makes a unbalanced build.

I think you give new players too little credit. As a new player, I understood that dodge wasn't worthwhile. There is no need to hardwire things the "best" way (Which is subjective).

I think the ideal in designing balance between character builds is that every possible build is on par with every other possible build. Your build choices should decide what and/or how you want to play, but not your power level.

For logistical reasons, this is impossible unless you make the differences between options so small as to not matter (eww) or the number of choices very, very small (also eww).

Still, balanced games are usually more fun, so, if you can do something to improve the balance of a game, without removing fun, you definitely should. That caveat is important: Balance isn't everything. Fun is the important factor that balance just contributes to, and there are plenty of very fun games that are also woefully unbalanced. If you remove fun or interesting things in the name of balancing out the different character choices, you've probably achieved a net loss.


I think you could definitely remove ability scores without losing fun. I mean, is messing around with your stats, moving one point to another, fun or interesting? I don't think so: The fun and interesting parts of characters in D&D comes from discrete abilities that character can actually do (spellcasting, trapsense, rage), not from the scores that provide mechanical bonuses to these abilities.

[Scowling Dragon]

I think you could definitely remove ability scores without losing fun. I mean, is messing around with your stats, moving one point to another, fun or interesting? I don't think so: The fun and interesting parts of characters in D&D comes from discrete abilities that character can actually do (spellcasting, trapsense, rage), not from the scores that provide mechanical bonuses to these abilities.

Aside from me disagreeing on the last part this tends to lead down the slippery slope of "Well If we remove ___ then why not just make this hardwired as well? Its just as important/ interesting as _____ was" until your left with the only choice of selecting your class.

Mostly you just don't have fun messing around with scores. I do. =P

If you want you can just hardwire them, sure. But Im not planning to do so.

[Dienekes]

Again: How does one measure smartness? And how is being wise related to having a diety?

"I worship the god of madness. Therefore I am wise".

I made it by their force of personality. Since religious priests and stuff need to be charismatic in one form or another to preach.

Well we have various tests in the real world that attempt to measure smartness. Less that measure mental clarity in everything except determining mental illness.

As to Wis=religion, I think what they were going for was a high wisdom person is an enlightened person and an enlightened person who was religious was therefore more in tune with their deity. But now they're tying mental clarity into enlightenment which I'm not sure if it exactly follows, because again those terms are very loose in their definition.

[Delvin Darkwood]

Why is it that people on this forum seem so negative and seem to only want an edition that hand-hold them through everything?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Aside from me disagreeing on the last part this tends to lead down the slippery slope of "Well If we remove ___ then why not just make this hardwired as well? Its just as important/ interesting as _____ was" until your left with the only choice of selecting your class.

Mostly you just don't have fun messing around with scores. I do. =P

If you want you can just hardwire them, sure. But Im not planning to do so.

Well, think of it this way. Let's say you're making a wizard with the following stats (Just pulling numbers out my ass):

STR 8
DEX 16
CON 14
CLR 18
CHA 10

(I've chosen to use "CLR" for "Clarity" which I believe is what you said your new merged Int/Wis stat was called. Feel free to correct me here.)

Is it really a meaningful choice between the above, and the same wizard but with these stats instead:


STR 8
DEX 14
CON 16
CLR 18
CHA 10

(Again, we're comparing the same set of character options: If the former wizard chose an option that requires 16 DEX, and this one sacrificed that option to pick up something that required 16 CON instead, then we're comparing the DEX option and the CON option, not the switching around of the scores themselves.)

Now which one is actually better depends on your revision on how ability scores work, but will the above two wizards actually be meaningfully different? If you're dead set on attempting it then all I can say is best of luck to you, just be warned that many, many other games (D&D-likes or not) have tried to make ability scores matter and I've never seen a single one actually succeed.

[Scowling Dragon]

Measure pure smartness yes, but you can't JUST increase your IQ. You have to know things first THEN your IQ increases. Its like if INT was dependant on your knowledge skills.

Clarity is how clearly you think :

From Crazy gibbering madman - Sherlock holmes

Wis= Religion doesn't work if you there are gods of madness and mindless battle.

Clerical powers aren't dependent on that in my system. Their dependent on charisma. How well you preach and how strong you can cast your thoughts and emotions into the heavens to have your god hear you.

If you're dead set on attempting it then all I can say is best of luck to you, just be warned that many, many other games (D&D-likes or not) have tried to make ability scores matter and I've never seen a single one actually succeed.

Which is your opinion. Or maybe the mass opinion. But thanks anyway.

Con makes you more durable allowing you to cast more spells (Since each time you cast a spell it drains your energy).

Int allows you to cast them faster

Dex allows you to aim more accurately and have better craft/ Ritual skills.

[Seerow]

Why is it that people on this forum seem so negative and seem to only want an edition that hand-hold them through everything?

Because some people don't think playing magic tea party to convince your DM you should be able to do something is fun. Or even people who do think it's fun don't think it's right or needed to actually pay anybody to do so.

[Ranting Fool]

On this Advantage/disadvantage thing. In combat is there a way to get an advantage via flanking / helping?

Since it seems to be Stealth / Cover / Prone / Helpless.

[DrBurr]

On this Advantage/disadvantage thing. In combat is there a way to get an advantage via flanking / helping?

Since it seems to be Stealth / Cover / Prone / Helpless.

Technically it doesn't mention flanking but give the DM the position to hand out advantage and disadvantage so if you feel it qualifies go right ahead

[Shadow Lord]

Easy enough. 1d4 for wizard, 1d6 for rogue, 1d8 for cleric, 1d10 for fighter. By the rules you actually had to roll that, so you could have one hit point, although a common houserule was max HP for first level. Then, add +1 for con 15, +2 for con 16, +3 and +4 for con 17 and 18 if you're a fighter otherwise it doesn't count.

So about 5 hp on average, I'd say. People who didn't want to be so fragile would simply start a few levels higher; this just depends on what style of campaign you want. And mind you, the earlier editions explicitly gave XP for good ideas and roleplaying, so at level one you simply were not supposed to solve your problems through combat.

Of course, at the time you also had different XP tracks, so at any given point in a game you can have characters of varying levels and abilities.

By the way, and entirely irrelevantly, is your avatar the Soltaken form of Anomandar Rake?

[captaineddie]

Can someone help me out, I, for the life of me, can't figure out the attack rolls

Say. Look at the Moradin Priest for example, he has a Strength of +2, but he has a +4 to hit on his warhammer, where are the other +2 coming from? Training? If you have training in that weapon do you automatically get a +2?

[Starbuck_II]

Unless there's dual-wielding rules to playtest and they're seriously broken, that won't be a problem. You're not using that extra hand for anything else and drawing a weapon is a free action, so you can switch your staff to your off-hand (not Ready) and fling your daggers willy-nilly. Then, when somebody gets close, you stop drawing daggers and bludgeon them to death with your staff.
And if somebody resists Bludgeoning damage? That's *still* what the daggers are for. All you lose is one size of damage die.

Two sizes, non-theives use a 1d4 dagger (no, I don't get it why the PDF/book says 1d4, but the Thieve gets 1d6, must be a class feature).

And yeah, training with a weapon seems to boost hit rate. Unless it is BAB +1, training +1.
But I seriously doubt they have +1 BAB, that is the Fighters thing.

[Ranting Fool]

Can someone help me out, I, for the life of me, can't figure out the attack rolls

Say. Look at the Moradin Priest for example, he has a Strength of +2, but he has a +4 to hit on his warhammer, where are the other +2 coming from? Training? If you have training in that weapon do you automatically get a +2?

We just don't know since the play test doesn't tell us. We can see that a Fighter has a +3 vs the +2 of the cleric and others (remember the Halfling is using Dex so it makes sense) whether or not that is a hidden BAB we can't read or another buff we won't know until they show us more info.

Also fighter seems to have a bonus to damage.

Did a bit of play testing.... Have to say I really do like how our level 1 heroes are so much harder / can go for longer then 3.5 (since that is what I play) less of the 15min work day.

There are no AoO are there? (Unless you make a ready action) so there is no issue running past people / away from them.

I can't find anything at all that says that flanking or outnumbering gives an Advantage in combat (other than the DM said Kobolds have a racial that does that) so other then jumping behind another player how can the Halfling get his Sneak Attack off each round? Is he/she not meant to?

Most of us playing think that flanking/outnumbering should give an advantage to hit (or at least one person should be able to use his action to "Assist") but since I can't seem to find it stated anywhere and we all very much want to "Playtest the rules given rather then playtest the homebrew we make as we play" I was wondering if I missed it (or if it's the DM bit and he missed it)


Oh on playing the "Ray of Frost = win" tried it on a big bad and failed to hit for 3 turns running (while the big bad hit people) since there is nothing about touch attacks or flat footed (other then advantage on attack) then spells that are ranged attacks should be VS the Armour stated (Yes again I could easy work out Touch AC but thats forcing 3.5 rules into 5.0 playtest)

Anyone else have examples of things they have come across while playing ?

P.S Please avoid listing details of encounters for those of us who haven't yet played the full modual

[SSGoW]

We just don't know since the play test doesn't tell us. We can see that a Fighter has a +3 vs the +2 of the cleric and others (remember the Halfling is using Dex so it makes sense) whether or not that is a hidden BAB we can't read or another buff we won't know until they show us more info.

Also fighter seems to have a bonus to damage.

Did a bit of play testing.... Have to say I really do like how our level 1 heroes are so much harder / can go for longer then 3.5 (since that is what I play) less of the 15min work day.

There are no AoO are there? (Unless you make a ready action) so there is no issue running past people / away from them.

I can't find anything at all that says that flanking or outnumbering gives an Advantage in combat (other than the DM said Kobolds have a racial that does that) so other then jumping behind another player how can the Halfling get his Sneak Attack off each round? Is he/she not meant to?

Most of us playing think that flanking/outnumbering should give an advantage to hit (or at least one person should be able to use his action to "Assist") but since I can't seem to find it stated anywhere and we all very much want to "Playtest the rules given rather then playtest the homebrew we make as we play" I was wondering if I missed it (or if it's the DM bit and he missed it)


Oh on playing the "Ray of Frost = win" tried it on a big bad and failed to hit for 3 turns running (while the big bad hit people) since there is nothing about touch attacks or flat footed (other then advantage on attack) then spells that are ranged attacks should be VS the Armour stated (Yes again I could easy work out Touch AC but thats forcing 3.5 rules into 5.0 playtest)

Anyone else have examples of things they have come across while playing ?

P.S Please avoid listing details of encounters for those of us who haven't yet played the full modual

I'm glad there are other people out there not trying to force another edition onto this one... However there will always be homebrew rules, AoO is something my group added in (along with giving the fighter the stand still feat for free... Something I need to send to WoTC)... Mostly to keep the high elf alive...

I like the Herbalism feat/feature and I hope they add in more stuff like this. Healing potions that do 1d8 for 25 gp? Hell yeah... 3/hour? Even better.

Being able to create small things without rolling dice is pretty sweet.

I wonder if I missed a Blacksmith theme....

[DrBurr]

We just don't know since the play test doesn't tell us. We can see that a Fighter has a +3 vs the +2 of the cleric and others (remember the Halfling is using Dex so it makes sense) whether or not that is a hidden BAB we can't read or another buff we won't know until they show us more info.

Also fighter seems to have a bonus to damage.

Did a bit of play testing.... Have to say I really do like how our level 1 heroes are so much harder / can go for longer then 3.5 (since that is what I play) less of the 15min work day.

There are no AoO are there? (Unless you make a ready action) so there is no issue running past people / away from them.

I can't find anything at all that says that flanking or outnumbering gives an Advantage in combat (other than the DM said Kobolds have a racial that does that) so other then jumping behind another player how can the Halfling get his Sneak Attack off each round? Is he/she not meant to?

Most of us playing think that flanking/outnumbering should give an advantage to hit (or at least one person should be able to use his action to "Assist") but since I can't seem to find it stated anywhere and we all very much want to "Playtest the rules given rather then playtest the homebrew we make as we play" I was wondering if I missed it (or if it's the DM bit and he missed it)

Anyone else have examples of things they have come across while playing ?

P.S Please avoid listing details of encounters for those of us who haven't yet played the full modual

Been Speculating on those add ups for attacks
The Fighter has a +3 from an unknown source
I'm speculating that +2 comes from their class because the wizard & clerics have similar bonuses, which leaves an additional +1

Clerics and Wizards get +2 to spells and the Wizard has a +1 from an unknown source

Though the Figher's +3 seems to be static because it applies to the Fighters Crossbow too

Also the H.Cleric's Quarterstaff appears to have a typo it says +1 atk when it should be +2 unless I missed a penalty

The Rogue and D.Cleric have a similar issues with their weapons each gaining a +2 from unknown sources

Havent checked the numbers damage wise but I can tell there's some missing info.

There are no defined flanking rules its up to the DM whether or not that grants advantage or disadvantage

I wonder if I missed a Blacksmith theme....

Check the Halfling's sheet

[Starbuck_II]

jumping behind another player how can the Halfling get his Sneak Attack off each round? Is he/she not meant to?

If he wants Sneak Attack: he is mesn to hide behind someone/thing and ru and and attack (ambush feat allows it).

Oh on playing the "Ray of Frost = win" tried it on a big bad and failed to hit for 3 turns running (while the big bad hit people) since there is nothing about touch attacks or flat footed (other then advantage on attack) then spells that are ranged attacks should be VS the Armour stated (Yes again I could easy work out Touch AC but thats forcing 3.5 rules into 5.0 playtest)

Everything attacks normal AC, there is no Touch AC.