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

[hamlet]

I don't envision this being any more difficult than say, ensuring you basically always get sneak attack.

MReav...if that's true, then char design will be extremely boring. That said, I feel like there will almost certainly be other optimization to engage in.

Actually, I have no problem, and see good advantages, to character creation being a relatively simple process. This way, instead of starting out with a fully fledged amature thespian idea of what you want your character to be, you roll some dice, pick a race and a class, buy some equipment, and off you go. Your character is defined by what he does rather than your 5 page backstory which you're sure you would win a Newberry for if only somebody would nominate it.

In the old school, character background is what happened to you during your first 4 levels, and I think in some ways, it worked better that way. At the end of the day, the old school method meant that you, in a very real way, earned those stories rather than just wrote them out. It makes for a better play experience IMO.

[Tyndmyr]

Wouldn't it be better for character creation and levelling systems to give you hard numbers while in game your working out the advantage disadvantage so you dont need to do much on the fly math?

Maybe. It all depends on the execution.

I'm a little worried about hp/healing inflation and a relative lack of randomness(advantage, rogues taking 10 on skills both reduce randomness). I don't have enough information yet to know if it'll be problematic. We'll see.

[Clawhound]

I like the look at rethinking randomness.

Which randomness makes a good game? That's a very good question to ask. What things should be more random? What things should be less random? When is it better to get certainty?

I don't know the answers. I'm sure that varies by person and playgroup.

[Wargor]

I'm actually getting a bit excited over 5th edition, it actually looks like it's shaping up to be a game I'm going to enjoy. I was not expecting this at all.

[Stubbazubba]

I'm with Wargor, I expected to have nothing but criticism for 5e, but there are some real promising things in there.

Advantage/Disadvantage is one of them. DefKab's criticism that it slows down combat is only true if one assumes that you roll a d20, figure your total, and then decide if you need to try it again; if you roll 2 d20s, you take 1/3 of a second to determine which one is higher/lower and ignore the other one, then figure out your total as usual. Much easier than remembering all of the temporary modifiers that are active (even if calculating the total is a non-issue, which is not the case at many tables, then you'll still take 3-6 seconds trying to remember if you've missed any), and much more transparent to boot. While the advantage it actually gives is rather swingy, it'll actually reduce the swinginess that is otherwise inherent to the d20. It's an elegant, fun, and simple way to address the situational advantage issue. It may not represent multiple conditions terribly well, and that's an issue that does need to be addressed, but if it came down to it I'd say Ad/Dis brings more to the play experience than it takes away.

[Yora]

I like the look at rethinking randomness.

Which randomness makes a good game? That's a very good question to ask. What things should be more random? What things should be less random? When is it better to get certainty?

I don't know the answers. I'm sure that varies by person and playgroup.

What you want is not randomness, but uncertainty. It can often appear to be the same, but is something different.

Rolling 1d20 for an attack roll is uncertainty.
Rolling for starting ability scores is random.

[Tyndmyr]

What you want is not randomness, but uncertainty. It can often appear to be the same, but is something different.

Rolling 1d20 for an attack roll is uncertainty.
Rolling for starting ability scores is random.

Those definitions are...quite arbitrary, and do not match the usual definitions of the word. You would be better served by saying that some types of randomness are preferable.

Rolling for an attack roll also has randomness.

[Scowling Dragon]

Yora was referring to their points. Their both random, but their points are different.

[Ashdate]

I think what Yora is getting at is that most d20 rolls are short-term consequences. Yes, we all have that story of rolling one on the bluff roll and yadda yadda, but to a certain degree we have control over those d20 rolls; we wouldn't have rolled it unless we wanted to. You generally will know the consequences for success/failure when you roll your average d20 check in D&D, whether it be an attack roll of a charisma check to charm a prince.

Character creation is different; the choices made there are generally permanent and unchangeable. If there is no benefit to having 10-12 in every stat (because that's what your rolled) compared to the guy who managed 3 sixteens and a fourteen, then you're actively and permanently being hurt by the rules of the game before even starting it. That's not uncertainty, that's just bad luck.

[The J Pizzel]

I skipped to the last page of this thread after only reading excerpts from the other pages of the thread, so forgive me if I'm late on some topics.

I saw many people upset that there's no skill list anymore. I, for one, and extremely excited about this. I would much prefer for a player to just say what they want to do, and I connect it to an ability roll. No more worrying about what skill it falls under. To be fair, deciding what character actions depicted what skills wasn't that hard to begin with, but I still think I'll enjoy not being pidgeon-holed into a specific skill anymore. It seems like it will encourage players to come up with exciting actions, and not worry about wether or not they have Intimidate trained.

From WOTC: By the time you read this answer, many of you will already have seen how we're handling skills, but this gives me a chance to go into a little more depth about the "why" behind our checks, abilities, and skills system. The system for checks focuses on what have classically been called ability checks, with skills providing a bonus on top of those checks regardless of the ability being used. So, if I have the Wilderness Lore skill, I might gain its bonus on Intelligence checks made to recall knowledge of flora and fauna, or on Wisdom checks to spot signs of man-made disturbances in a wilderness area.

We have put the system in place this way for several reasons. First, since it is the DM who makes the call on what ability to use for the check based on the description of the character's action, it allows the player to keep some control over his or her competence through skills. Moreover, we think that it encourages the player to think creatively and describe actions that make sense for the character's expertise and abilities. Hand in hand with that, it requires the DM to think about only the six ability scores when adjudicating the game, not an entire list of skills (and while it is true that many DMs could handle a large list of skills just as easily as six ability scores, this system also makes it possible for us to have a non-fixed list of skills). Last, disentangling the skills from ability scores should also make it so that players will end up considering and taking skills that they otherwise wouldn't—the most obvious example being the high-Strength but low-Charisma fighter taking Intimidate, because the player knows he or she can use that skill with Strength pretty easily.

Thoughts?

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Character creation is different; the choices made there are generally permanent and unchangeable. If there is no benefit to having 10-12 in every stat (because that's what your rolled) compared to the guy who managed 3 sixteens and a fourteen, then you're actively and permanently being hurt by the rules of the game before even starting it. That's not uncertainty, that's just bad luck.

Yeah, that's why I prefer point buy and averaging hit points. It looks like they're planning to give 5e tons of different optional rules for all of these things. I hope they have a whole chapter of houserules like the 3.5 DMG did.

I'm astonished that they're reducing the effect that character level has on d20 checks. This means you'll be able to have a level 1 wizard join a 5th-level party and still contribute (as long as he doesn't get his head knocked off by a stray crossbow bolt). I actually like this quite a bit, but I need to see how it plays out at the table. I think this new edition is going to make character optimizers weep.

[Tyndmyr]

I saw many people upset that there's no skill list anymore. I, for one, and extremely excited about this. I would much prefer for a player to just say what they want to do, and I connect it to an ability roll. No more worrying about what skill it falls under. To be fair, deciding what character actions depicted what skills wasn't that hard to begin with, but I still think I'll enjoy not being pidgeon-holed into a specific skill anymore. It seems like it will encourage players to come up with exciting actions, and not worry about wether or not they have Intimidate trained.

Oh? Did the rogue ability not refer to specific skills? I believe skills will still exist, just not in this first, obviously minimalistic playtest.

[Ashdate]

Yeah, I think you're fooling yourself if you think that skills "do not exist". They're still around, in a form quite similar to 4e's "specializations", except +3 instead of +5 (and more specific rather than broader).

In fact, the "change" is one that has generally been around in 3.5 and 4e; just because you don't have any training in hiding in shadows doesn't mean a character can't attempt it with a straight character roll. DND next is basically just changing the language.

[Coplantor]

Having read the full thread, I see that my first impression of the game is pretty much the same one everybody had, Advantage/Disadvantage looks pretty cool but the Hit Dice as healing surges is a bit ridiculous and overly complicated.

I do hope that 5th edition brings a natural healing mechanic that I actually like, I was never satisfied with any edition, they always felt somewhat wrong.

I like that it's in the right direction for the ALL EDITIONS ALL THE TIME feeling, when I first read I thought, "Hey, it 2nd/3rd-ish! I like it!" yet I saw here and other forums that some people claim that it is very 1st like or 4th like. That's cool.

[EatAtEmrakuls]

You know, stuff like "Advantages and Disadvantages that don't stack lead to a lot of undesirable and/or silly situations" is exactly the kind of feedback WotC is after with this playtest.
So, instead of just badmouthing everything, sing up for the playtest and fill out the survey.

You assume I am not singed [sic] up for the playtest, even though I'm discussing all of the material in it? Odd.

And I'm not badmouthing everything, just the stuff that's stupid from a design standpoint. I like hit dice, they just need to A) Be useable in combat, and B) Not require that ridiculous healing kit. I can't imagine a level 20 Fighter, capable of knocking a dragon on its ass, needing to stop and bandage up.

Admittedly, hit dice is about ALL I like.

[Scots Dragon]

Yes, because nobody will ever need to bandage up after fighting a gigantic reptillian monster with the ability to breathe fire, claws and teeth like greatswords, inherent magical powers, a surprisingly high amount of speed and mobility for something of its size, and the intelligence to use all that effectively.

[Scowling Dragon]

And I like the Hit point regaining system. It gives a bit of randomization and makes the healing kit not useless past level 3.

[noparlpf]

I don't like much randomisation when it comes to healing. I hate casting a Cure X Wounds spell and rolling three ones. I especially hate rolling dice for healing potions. I paid good money for that potion of Cure Moderate Wounds, and it healed three hit points? Healing ought to be more consistent.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

And I like the Hit point regaining system. It gives a bit of randomization and makes the healing kit not useless past level 3.

This.

In 3.5 D&D you basically had to have a cleric to get any dungeon crawling done. If you didn't have a cleric, you had to either chug 2-3 potions after every fight, or take a rest. The Heal skill only worked if you took 8 hours to rest, and even then it only healed twice your level in hit points (four times your level if you took 24 hours to rest). Maybe the wizard would be fully healed if he did that, but the barbarian would take a few days to heal from 0 hit points.

This system lets you stop in the middle of a dungeon crawl, take 15 minutes to bandage your wounds, and then keep going. It scales very well with level too, and it also seems to have an equal effect regardless of a character's class because you roll based on your class's hit dice.

[Scowling Dragon]

And yes its a bit random, but I like it.

4e had healing surges but that was 5 minutes and your completely healed.

This I think strikes the balance between immersion and functionality.

[Ashdate]

And I like the Hit point regaining system. It gives a bit of randomization and makes the healing kit not useless past level 3.

I think the Hit Dice thing is interesting but I worry that the point of it (I believe it is to alleviate the need for a cleric to patch you up out of combat, as well as to extend the effective working day) is that it doesn't really scale. I ponder if it ever comes up where a character refuses to push on because they botched their Hit Dice roll on healing, and instead of the 6 or 7 they need to feel safe, they come up with only 2 or 3, turning a short rest into an extended one for no reason other than a bad dice roll.

I'm not a DM who enjoys keeping track of fiddly bits, so forcing players to keep track of how many uses are left on their healing kit isn't really ideal either.

I mean hey, without the ability to spend them in combat (at least not as presented), fights are going to be just as lethal. You're just going to force more downtime. I don't really know if that is something I want in a game to be determined by random rolls.

In 3.5 D&D you basically had to have a cleric to get any dungeon crawling done.

You never heard of a Wand of Cure Light Wounds? 750gp was a bargain for 50d8 + 50 points of healing.

[Tyndmyr]

This.

In 3.5 D&D you basically had to have a cleric to get any dungeon crawling done. If you didn't have a cleric, you had to either chug 2-3 potions after every fight, or take a rest. The Heal skill only worked if you took 8 hours to rest, and even then it only healed twice your level in hit points (four times your level if you took 24 hours to rest). Maybe the wizard would be fully healed if he did that, but the barbarian would take a few days to heal from 0 hit points.

No you didn't...I'll be honest, my group ignored the heal skill for anything other than stabilization, and didn't bother with a cleric half the time. It's no big thing. You either invest in alternate healing means(and seriously, a wand of CLW lasts for ages), or invest in avoiding damage. It's not a problem of note.

Hell, my wizard 7 atm is a fantastic healer. Can crank out better healing the the favored soul, who is a horrifically bad healer(flaw prevents healing people of differing alignments).

[noparlpf]

No you didn't...I'll be honest, my group ignored the heal skill for anything other than stabilization, and didn't bother with a cleric half the time. It's no big thing. You either invest in alternate healing means(and seriously, a wand of CLW lasts for ages), or invest in avoiding damage. It's not a problem of note.

Hell, my wizard 7 atm is a fantastic healer. Can crank out better healing the the favored soul, who is a horrifically bad healer(flaw prevents healing people of differing alignments).

May I ask how a wizard handles healing?

My experience as party Healer (yeah, I prefer Healer to Cleric for optimising in-combat healing) is that I am frequently needed. Yeah, it's possible to avoid the need for a healer, but the game itself is designed to include that need. The point here is that that is a flaw in game design. Many people don't like being saddled with the role of party healer. I often take it because I don't mind it, and it amuses me to be the sole survivor of a one-shot because I could heal myself faster and run away faster than the bad guys could injure me and chase me.

[The Troubadour]

(...)and detecting your enemies is automatic unless they've taken a move action to stealth themselves.

Not if he's Blind.

[Tyndmyr]

May I ask how a wizard handles healing?

My experience as party Healer (yeah, I prefer Healer to Cleric for optimising in-combat healing) is that I am frequently needed. Yeah, it's possible to avoid the need for a healer, but the game itself is designed to include that need. The point here is that that is a flaw in game design. Many people don't like being saddled with the role of party healer. I often take it because I don't mind it, and it amuses me to be the sole survivor of a one-shot because I could heal myself faster and run away faster than the bad guys could injure me and chase me.

In my case, eternal wand of CLW, belt of Healing, and the spell Light of Venya. Had all that at level 5, but there's more options later on.

We rarely have anyone as a dedicated healer, even if they play a class that can be. Everyone just gets some inexpensive option to heal, and of we go.

That said, one of my buds does the old AD&D stuff, and he pooh poohs the idea of needing a healer as well. Says it's because people nowadays are careless and sloppy. I suspect there's a bit of truth there along with the curmudgeonliness.

[Seerow]

Yeah for my group, at low level we typically need a healer simply because items are too expensive (talking like levels 1-3, maybe as far as 4 here). Typical choices are a Crusader, or a Cleric with Healing Devotion, because both give a fairly large amount of healing early on for low investment while still being good at other stuff.

But beyond that, you can just grab a wand of lesser vigor and go. 550 hp per wand will probably last you several levels (depending on party size, and damage avoidance), and even at later levels it'll last you a few adventuring days for each one. The only real problem is if you need a bunch of hit points -right now- rather than being able to wait a couple minutes. And in 3.5, this is very rarely an issue.



On the other hand, I really do think it should be an issue. I liked that 4e made in combat healing viable, by making base healing numbers high enough to be worth while, and keeping the healing scaling all the way to level 30 with the healing surge mechanic. I liked that most healing was doable with a swift action and at a range, so that healing could actually be done when it was needed without needing to be on the front lines to use it. I especially liked that out of combat healing didn't require lots of magic of waiting days. A group could go through a whole module in one adventuring day with no magic whatsoever, if they rationed their resources and adjusted party tactics appropriately. I really liked that aspect of it.



On the hit dice mechanic, I mentioned before I really didn't like it. I have since realized that apparently an extended rest recovers all hit points and all hit dice, not just your hit dice, so it's not quite as bad as I had thought (I was fearing for the 20hp fighter brought near to death, then taking over a week to recover because of bad rolls). Given that isn't the case, it's not quite as bad as I initially thought, however it still leaves the problem of there not being enough healing without magic to get you through an adventure.

Consider, a 1st level Fighter has 20 hit points, and recovers on average 8.5 from his hit dice. But it's still entirely possible for him to recover only 3. Now I don't know about you, but if I'm playing the front liner, and last fight I got hit for 12 points of damage, and I only recovered 3 hit points after the fight, bringing me to 11 HP, I am really not going to want to go on to the next encounter. Because I know if I go on the front lines, there's good odds I'm dead. But if I don't go on the front lines, I'm useless because I'm a fighter, front lines is all I can do.

Also, due to the way it scales, you do gain slightly more in the way of healing each level than you do in hit points, assuming you have a decent con. By level 20, you have probably have around 140 hit points. But you have something like 20d12+60 in healing for the day (average: 190). While at level 1, you have 20 hit points, and the average of 8.5 in healing. So you go from healing about 40% of your hit points to healing about 135% of your hit points. So that is a fairly noticeable increase in durability. I just don't feel like it's enough. The percentage should be higher across the board, and randomization should be much lower. Setting all healing from hit dice to max would be a good place to start. (thus getting you from 70% at level 1, scaling up to about 215%).


Numbers above assume constitution mod scaling upwards to at least +3 by level 20. We've seen a lot to indicate they want to keep a very tight reign on everything (mentioning characters won't get much beyond a 20, and only Gods have stats as high as 30), so I don't want to assume con going much higher than that, but I do think it's safe to assume they'll go up at least some.

[hamlet]

And I like the Hit point regaining system. It gives a bit of randomization and makes the healing kit not useless past level 3.

The short rest thing is fine, since they went out of their way to explain it as equal parts luck and physical constitution.

But the "rest 8 hours get full recharge" thing really bothers me. To the point that I probably won't buy the game, or will houserule that away if I ever do.

[Scowling Dragon]

Oh sure. More then likely Im going to houserule that after you go through a major battle you MUST take a long rest as your to weary to use plot arm.

[hamlet]

Oh sure. More then likely Im going to houserule that after you go through a major battle you MUST take a long rest as your to weary to use plot arm.

Actually, as I mentioned upthread, I prefer the way that D20 Star Wars handled it pre-Saga. Essentially, you have two hitpoint totals. One is hit points which account for luck and plot armor, and the other, which equals your CON as I recall, is equal to actual physical damage. The first heals quickly as you just stop to take a breather, the later much more slowly and really mostly with the aid of medical science (or, in our case, magic and days of rest).

The later doesn't get touched until either 1) all the former are burned or 2) a critical hit gets scored (and there'd probably have to be some kind of conversion rate or something since numbers are growing again).

[Kurald Galain]

Regarding the necessity of clerics, I can say from my own 2E days that it can be played without one. This might mean that you need a week to recover after a big battle, but so what? It's more realistic for the DM to say "it's now a week later" than for characters to go from L1 to L20 all within a single month.

Not if he's Blind.

Under the errata'ed-and-errata'ed-again stealth rules, yes, a character who is blinded still knows precisely where everybody and everything is on the battlefield (unless they have taken a move action that allows a stealth check). You just take a -5 to hit, unless you use close or area attacks. No, I don't like it either.