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

[Dsurion]

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.

I kinda get the feeling that optimization will quickly devolve into finding the few things that DO give flat modifiers and basing your Advantage around them.

I'm torn. I like the simplicity of rolling two dice instead of calculating numbers. That sounds awesome. Also, I like dice, and excuses to use more are always a plus.

However, it means that basically always having advantage is going to be one of the core elements of charop. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I don't see it as much different than other parts of optimization that require always having X.

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?

I agree.

Why would you not just roll the 2 d20s at the same time and pick higher then add numbers to it?

Yeah, people should really do this any time they roll multiple dice, such as for an attack roll. It wastes time to roll to see if you hit, then wait for a response, then roll dice for damage. Better to just roll them all together.

[Eric Tolle]

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.

And in the old school, that character background consisted of "Went into a dungeon. Went into another dungeon. Traveled to a dungeon and went into it. Found yet another dungeon and went into it." Family was only a source of replacement characters with the same name. If your character actually had a favorite food, that was dangerous levels of the amateur thespianism Gary warned us about.

[Craft (Cheese)]

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.

Okay, I've been spending the last 6 hours thinking of a cohesive response for this post, and still don't have something satisfactory. So I apologize if this seems a bit disorganized.

- I can't know for sure what Yora meant, but I would answer with almost exactly the same words s/he did: Uncertainty is a desirable property that randomness creates, totally independent and separate from it (as it can be created without randomness; see Chess for a great example), but randomness has the potential to create undesirable properties.

- I've struggled to think of a rigorous, formal definition of Uncertainty within the context of game design, so I'll give you a ****ty definition that doesn't work quite right and call it good enough: Uncertainty is the property that the game depends on inputs other than your own moves. Super Mario Bros. is an example of a game without uncertainty: The levels are exactly the same every time, save for Mario's interactions with its objects.

(I'm well aware that this definition falls apart when you try to pin down exactly what the player's "moves" are. Is the exact way you roll a die a move? How about the way your button presses affect the pseudorandom number generator in a video game? Is pissing off another player so they decide to take revenge on your character a move? Where do you draw the line? Just use the intuitive definition: Full Attack is a move, but flipping off the DM is not. And don't think too hard about it.)

- Uncertainty is a desirable property in strategy games because it places a much greater requirement on planning ahead: Because the game could respond to your decision in multiple ways, you have to plan for all of them. Being successful at Tetris, for example, is not just about getting your blocks into position to fill a line, but also requires arranging your pieces so future pieces can also fit in efficiently, balancing future payoff with immediate payoff. Absent risk, planned payoff in the future is always greater, and you need uncertainty to have risk. Without uncertainty about what pieces you're going to be getting, the choice between present and future payoff in Tetris disappears completely.

- As said earlier, uncertainty can be added by any input other than your own determining how the game state advances. This could be the input of an RNG, but uncertainty is also created (perhaps even more effectively) by the decisions of other players. First-person shooters almost implement this perfectly: Bullet spread (normally intended as a way to limit weapon range) and respawn locations usually* being the only RNG dependent factors. The uncertainty in the game is caused by your inaccuracy, your reaction time, and the actions of the other players, the former two being improvable with practice. I'm actually working on a simple proof-of-concept indie thing at the moment that doesn't use dice at all, using only the decisions of other players at the table (including the DM) to determine what happens, while still being a crunch-heavy, (hopefully) deep and interesting strategic combat game.

* Some games don't implement bullet spread and others never have more than a single respawn point on the map at a time. Are there any FPSes with multiple spawn points that always lets you choose where you respawn? There are also other mechanics like critical hits, but these are uncommon in the competitive FPS genre.

[kieza]

I've just gotten the playtest, and here are my first thoughts.

Pros:
-The advantage/disadvantage system, especially how it's applicable to checks and saves now.
-I like that Strength, Intelligence and Charisma are used to defend against separate types of attack now.
-Everyone has Spring Attack.
-I like that skills are broadly defined, as a category of tasks to which you get a bonus if trained. There also seems to be nothing keeping you from training in underwater basketweaving or bagpipe-playing.
-I appreciate that there is apparently a High Elf race instead of Eladrin. High Elf is easily explained to newbies, Eladrin is not.

...And that's about it.

BIG Cons:
-I hate full-on vancian casting, and I don't get why 5e is resurrecting the sacred cow.
-Variable max hit points are stupidbad, and I thought that we'd done away with them. I do like that the hit die is used like a healing surge value, though.
-The documents (not the entire system) are taking a big step backwards in terms of readability. If you take a look at the section on spells, it looks like we're back to 3.5's reliance on walls of text. (At least they got rid of the massive chunk of stats at the top of each entry.) 4e had a nice, clean, uniform layout for powers, although it could have used smaller font and less whitespace. The same goes for the entries in the bestiary, which look a lot like 3e-style entries, not the clean, functional ones from 4e. This is a playtest, so hopefully they'll clean things up before publication.

Smaller Cons:
-I think that saving throws should be replaced by defenses, as in 4e. You can still have one for each stat, and it preserves 4e's advantage in that the attacker always rolls.
-Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems armor protects against some magic, which is...nontraditional, and a little illogical. Why does heavy armor make it easier to dodge a ray of frost? I'd be happier if spells targeted other defenses (or even forced a saving throw to start with).
-A lot of the spells have durations of several rounds, or a minute, bringing back a lot of bookkeeping that wasn't present in 4e.
-And, although I've heard that the finished fighter and rogue will have more options in combat than simply basic attacks, I don't like that there is no longer a unified system for martial and magical attacks.

I can probably find more nits to pick, but I'd like to see how the design team reacts to feedback.

[king.com]

-The documents (not the entire system) are taking a big step backwards in terms of readability. If you take a look at the section on spells, it looks like we're back to 3.5's reliance on walls of text. (At least they got rid of the massive chunk of stats at the top of each entry.) 4e had a nice, clean, uniform layout for powers, although it could have used smaller font and less whitespace. The same goes for the entries in the bestiary, which look a lot like 3e-style entries, not the clean, functional ones from 4e. This is a playtest, so hopefully they'll clean things up before publication.

See I actually prefer the combination of text with bolded math for my spell entries. I can completely understand the need for people who want spell stats to stay at the top but I find that if you have every stat that would be normally present in a stat block bolded you can generally both get the information you need and get the fluff text you need. Particually as they have already broken it up into Fluff and Effect sections. Maybe just my personal preference given the mostly small list of spells, maybe it gets horrible if spell descriptions take far too much space.

[Grac]

And in the old school, that character background consisted of "Went into a dungeon. Went into another dungeon. Traveled to a dungeon and went into it. Found yet another dungeon and went into it." Family was only a source of replacement characters with the same name. If your character actually had a favorite food, that was dangerous levels of the amateur thespianism Gary warned us about.

Seems you don't know much about what Gazza warned us about at all.

[MukkTB]

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.

This makes more sense. I'd still like to set dodge HP up so that it goes down the same amount every time the character dodged something of equal difficulty.

[hamlet]

And in the old school, that character background consisted of "Went into a dungeon. Went into another dungeon. Traveled to a dungeon and went into it. Found yet another dungeon and went into it." Family was only a source of replacement characters with the same name. If your character actually had a favorite food, that was dangerous levels of the amateur thespianism Gary warned us about.

Really?

Wow, I'm glad you're here to tell me these things. Otherwise, I might not know that my memories are lying to me.

[bokodasu]

Whew, finally got to the end of the thread. I've read through but not played yet, and in general I'm cautiously optimistic. Yes, there are problems, but I'm liking the flavor of the game and am hoping the crunch will be corrected.

I like dis/advantage. Not crazy about the healing system, but it both wasn't fun to take one hit and then spend the next three weeks healing up, and was completely unbelievable to me that you can get torched by a dragon, catch your breath, and be fine in a couple of seconds, so if it's going to be a playable game then I guess something's got to give somewhere. Still, I hope it's changed by the next test. Digging the skill (or skill-light) system, but I worry it will make the DM's job harder by not having a standard way to judge what characters can do.

I think there's been a trend through the editions (and maybe in the hobby in general) to move from a DM-powered game (don't let the players read the DMG!) to a player-empowering style (oh yes I can so heal by drowning, it says right here on p.342). Both styles have their advantages and disadvantages and I think tilting too far in either direction is a bad thing. I like that this edition seems to be taking a step back, giving the DM more discretion, without erasing the control players have come to expect over their characters. (Some people will not like this, and that's ok too, this part is entirely taste-driven.)

re: the minor spells, I think Ray of Frost and Charm are less powerful than people are thinking they are, probably because they're reading them through 3.5 lenses. But Magic Missile, WTF? On the one hand I vaguely remember a big stink about it not autohitting in 4e, and they changed it back (? - the only 4th I've played is Gamma World), but seriously, a decently ranged at-will autohit? I see nothing but trouble coming from that.

The biggest thing, reading through this thread, is that I'm noticing people bashing each other for having style preferences, bashing WotC for being stupid idiots for not releasing a completely playable, perfectly formatted book, complaining about unfixable core brokenness that is clearly a typo (e.g. the medusa - come on, that thing about averting your gaze isn't even a complete sentence, you really think that's what they mean for their final rule to be?), and generally having a flame-fest over irrelevant minutiae. Yep, sounds like they've managed to capture the D&D feel perfectly!

[Conundrum]

First survey is available! Go go constructive feedback

[Ashdate]

re: the minor spells, I think Ray of Frost and Charm are less powerful than people are thinking they are, probably because they're reading them through 3.5 lenses. But Magic Missile, WTF? On the one hand I vaguely remember a big stink about it not autohitting in 4e, and they changed it back (? - the only 4th I've played is Gamma World), but seriously, a decently ranged at-will autohit? I see nothing but trouble coming from that.

The problem with Ray of Frost (from what I saw) is that it is very good against particular monsters. Auto-hit damage is one thing (really, the problem is that the monsters presented tend to either have a handful of hp, or 100), but the ones that DO have a lot of HP tend to have poor or limited ranged attacks. Consider the following monsters in the module (spoilered), and how badly Ray of Frost hurts them (keeping in mind that the spell is +6 to hit, and has a 100ft range):

Spoiler

Show

Gelatinous Cube, no ranged attack (hit on a roll of 6 or higher)
Grey Ooze, no ranged attack (hit on a roll of 6 or higher)
Minotaur, no ranged attack (hit on a roll of 8 or higher)
Ogre, limited ranged attack or three spears (hit on a roll of 9 or higher)
Owlbear, no ranged attack (hit on a roll of 7 or higher)
Troll, no ranged attack (hit on a roll of 10 or higher)
Wight, no ranged attack (hit on a roll of 9 or higher)

Remembering that most of these encounters are generally encountered solo,in each case a successful hit opens up the rest of the party to make one or more rounds of free attacks with ranged weapons. Ray of Frost would be much better off as a level one spell that dealt a bit of damage in my opinion.

Edit: I thought I should be clear that Ray of Frost is particularly powerful in the material presented. They're clear that the point of the playtest is not to test player versus monster combat. However, if the defenses listed are any indication of what they're aiming for, giving the Wizard an at-will attack that they can hit with reliably which prevents a monster from moving is going to be pretty powerful against particular monsters, perhaps moreso than a simple at-will should be.

[Craft (Cheese)]

First survey is available! Go go constructive feedback

Do you feel the fighter has:

- Too few combat options
- Too many combat options
- Just enough combat options

...That's seriously a question? I don't see how they could possibly have given the fighter fewer things to do without removing him from the game completely.

[Seerow]

...That's seriously a question? I don't see how they could possibly have given the fighter fewer things to do without removing him from the game completely.

It's standard for all of the classes. Unfortunately I didn't lie and say I had played all of the classes to give my commentary on them all (including the fighter), but I did include in the comments for my Cleric of Moridin that I picked it because the Fighter didn't do enough, and the player who did end up picking fighter regretted that choice the whole night.

[Dead_Jester]

Remembering that most of these encounters are generally encountered solo,in each case a successful hit opens up the rest of the party to make one or more rounds of free attacks with ranged weapons. Ray of Frost would be much better off as a level one spell that dealt a bit of damage in my opinion.

I have to agree here, as it is, ray of frost is pretty much the equivalent to stunning an enemy every round, and, in my experience, it turned most combat against a single enemy into a slow grind as the party whittled down the monster's health while it was unable to move.

As for the rest, I am still unsure if the Advantage/Disadvantage system is better than flat bonuses, as, in my experience, the players know exactly what their normal bonuses are, and just add a few after the roll. However, the single condition does make bookkeeping much easier.

The rest of 5th edition is well, quite disappointing really. It's like they haven't learned anything from the end of 3.5 (ToB, ToM, etc) or 4th edition, and just made a new, halfbaked attempt at early 3rd edition, with all the problems inherent to that system. There is still the linear fighters and quadratic wizards problem, but now they kept the bloated HP of 4th edition without the rest of the mechanics that made it acceptable (healing surges for lots of "free" healing in combat and strong emphasis on teamwork, combos and debuffing), and, from what I can see, there is very little damage scaling, especially for the fighter (also, weapon focus and cleave ). Someone at WotC needs to read JaronK's tier system, as well as any one of the many analysis on the usefulness of most feats, and learn from those critiques. Hell, it's not like they weren't already doing something similar; most of the classes at the end of 3rd edition were solid tier 3, and 4th edition is based solely around achieving balance between the different classes (they went too far in the homogenization of power sources, but the idea was still there). The feats however, need a complete rework, and 4th edition also failed miserably here, probably more than 3rd edition with all it's mandatory feat taxes to remain level appropriate.

I also dislike how they simplified the races; I liked the 3.X idea of a pile of abilities (in the useful races, let us not speak of the half-breeds here) that made the races feel unique, and I also think they should have kept the racial powers from 4th edition, as they really emphasized the nature of the race (dwarves are tough, devas have seen it all already and dragonborns are, well, dragons).

[Craft (Cheese)]

It's standard for all of the classes. Unfortunately I didn't lie and say I had played all of the classes to give my commentary on them all (including the fighter), but I did include in the comments for my Cleric of Moridin that I picked it because the Fighter didn't do enough, and the player who did end up picking fighter regretted that choice the whole night.

Really? I only checked Cleric and Wizard and it still showed me the fighter questions. Still, the wizard didn't have a question specifically asking if they did too many things in combat or not. That was just the Fighter.

[Conundrum]

...That's seriously a question? I don't see how they could possibly have given the fighter fewer things to do without removing him from the game completely.

I'm imagining that that question won't receive a wide variety of responses...

[Seerow]

I'm imagining that that question won't receive a wide variety of responses...

Not sure if you're reading the wotc forums, but there's a lot of circle jerk about how the lack of defined abilities makes doing cool stuff easier. These people legitimately think the fighter is fine, and could probably do with losing a background or theme to make him more generic.

[Starbuck_II]

I'm imagining that that question won't receive a wide variety of responses...

I was wondering about that question. Because he was the only class I saw that for, granted, I didn't click/try Rogue or Wizard, but Cleric didn't have that question.

[bokodasu]

The problem with Ray of Frost (from what I saw) is that it is very good against particular monsters. Auto-hit damage is one thing (really, the problem is that the monsters presented tend to either have a handful of hp, or 100), but the ones that DO have a lot of HP tend to have poor or limited ranged attacks. Consider the following monsters in the module (spoilered), and how badly Ray of Frost hurts them (keeping in mind that the spell is +6 to hit, and has a 100ft range):
...
However, if the defenses listed are any indication of what they're aiming for, giving the Wizard an at-will attack that they can hit with reliably which prevents a monster from moving is going to be pretty powerful against particular monsters, perhaps moreso than a simple at-will should be.

I agree with you completely. Situationally, Ray of Frost is a game-changer; I just don't think the situation is going to be as common as people think it is. Take the troll as an example - if you're encountering him in a well-balanced party on an open plain, and you start exactly 100' away, yeah, he's gonna get meatgrindered. If you're in more restricted circumstances (e.g., can't keep that distance away, missing a meat shield, etc.), RoF is going to be missing about half the time (assuming no dis/advantage), and on any one of those misses he walks up and kills you. (Well, there's a pretty good chance he kills you outright - he has a 42% chance of all three attacks hitting and does an average of 22.5 damage if that happens, but better odds are you might live another round. And I'm not even figuring crits into that because statistics is my nemesis.)

So much of it depends on the DM & players. I pretty much never send single monsters against my usual players because I know them, and they will make mincemeat out of any solo thing just because of the action economy. (Seriously, I could Tarrasque them at level 6 and I'm sure they'd all walk away with badass tarrasque-skin longcoats.) Getting the wizard to lock himself out of any more useful options than immobilizing the monster would probably be a benefit to the poor doomed thing. On the other hand, I have another group of players who work together more like a band of coked-out monkeys than a finely-honed killing machine, and RoF might give them a chance to beat the troll.

But I'm not even going to argue that it should be at-will, because it shouldn't. (Just that it probably won't totally break the game if, in the end, it is.)

My objection to MM is more philosophical than anything else - when the wizard runs out of spells, he can just autoplink away? Nobody else can autohit! If the fighter- you know, the one WotC keeps emphasizing is the BEST at COMBAT - doesn't get an ability to automatically hit his enemies every round, then some weenie wizard certainly shouldn't. I thought we were trying to move AWAY from the 2-wizard, 2-cleric, only-a-loser-plays-melee party.

Do you feel the fighter has:

- Too few combat options
- Too many combat options
- Just enough combat options

I don't even... what? What combat options? Ok, yes, this is the thing that is upsetting me most. They've done very little to fix the fighter. It's like, here wizard! You are now streamlined, but in return for taking away a little variety, we now give you infinitely-castable spells! Here, cleric, you can be a paladin now! Here, fighter - um... er... want a wee little bonus to damage? Yay, total balance!

But I'm trying not to get too worked up about it this early in the game. The more options will come. (They have to, don't they?)

[Shadow Lord]

And now for something completely different and irrelevant to every other conversation going on right now:

The only way to make a magic user as weak as a Fighter is to make the magic not be magic. I'm completely ok with magic being stronger than mundane; If it wasn't, it would ruin my suspension of disbelief.

[1337 b4k4]

Nobody else can autohit! If the fighter- you know, the one WotC keeps emphasizing is the BEST at COMBAT - doesn't get an ability to automatically hit his enemies every round, then some weenie wizard certainly shouldn't.

See fighter slayer theme. On a miss, the fighter does STR (or other attack stat) damage. That's auto hit every round, and roughly the same as magic missile damage. Perhaps the fighter needs a bit more rounding out (as they said it would be rounded) but the fighter certainly has the option to hit every round.

The only way to make a magic user as weak as a Fighter is to make the magic not be magic. I'm completely ok with magic being stronger than mundane; If it wasn't, it would ruin my suspension of disbelief.

This is actually one of the reasons I think many people didn't like the "feel" of 4e. Every class honestly felt the same, and a wizard was no more "magical" than the fighter was "smashable" or the cleric was "holy".

Part of the problem is that magic by definition makes the wizard "more special" than the fighter, by sheer fact that magic allows a wizard to bend reality to their will (as V is so fond of reminding us). I think (and outlined in more detail here and here) that WotC might seriously want to consider just dropping the fighter all together.

[noparlpf]

And now for something completely different and irrelevant to every other conversation going on right now:

The only way to make a magic user as weak as a Fighter is to make the magic not be magic. I'm completely ok with magic being stronger than mundane; If it wasn't, it would ruin my suspension of disbelief.

Heck, Vancian magic is already hardly "magic".

See fighter slayer theme. On a miss, the fighter does STR (or other attack stat) damage. That's auto hit every round, and roughly the same as magic missile damage. Perhaps the fighter needs a bit more rounding out (as they said it would be rounded) but the fighter certainly has the option to hit every round.

I do like that.

[1337 b4k4]

Heck, Vancian magic is already hardly "magic".

Well, it's not magic in the Harry Potter sense, but if you read some of the old Appendix N material, it certainly behaves a bit more like that magic.

[RedWarlock]

And now for something completely different and irrelevant to every other conversation going on right now:

The only way to make a magic user as weak as a Fighter is to make the magic not be magic. I'm completely ok with magic being stronger than mundane; If it wasn't, it would ruin my suspension of disbelief.

I disagree with this. I think magic being more powerful should only be so if it's higher level. A 20th level wizard and a 20th level fighter should be equally powerful overall, otherwise what's the point of levels?

(On the other hand, I would also do away with straight fighters. In my house rules, everyone has some kind of supernatural, psionic, or magical abilities built in by 20th level, since it just goes with the territory of that level.)

[cfalcon]

Vancian magic seems very magic to me. It's not mana, but it isn't trying to be. Vancian magic works pretty well to me. I'd be angry if there was no other magic system, I guess, but Vancian Wizards are what I want in D&D.

[Scowling Dragon]

I just say that level 10+ fighters are powered by legend.

[bokodasu]

See fighter slayer theme.

Whoops, you're right, somehow I totally misread that. Ok, that's cool, and I am in favor. But the wizard still shouldn't be better at physical damage than the fighter is, and he is. (Unless the slayer theme starts granting 2x damage at the level the wizard gets to shoot 2 missiles, which we don't know yet. And that's not even factoring in how ranged > close, but maybe with the new move rules that's not so significant?)

Re: magic being better than nonmagic - ok, sure, but like "realistic" healing ("oops, you got scratched by his sword. Roll to see if it's infected. Oooh, you lose the leg, that's it, roll up a new character.") that doesn't make the game very interesting. It has to have at least situational drawbacks, or there's no point in including nonmagical options. And I am in favor of a world where warriors can jump to the clouds, drink oceans, and smash mountains. (And where the clever can talk the gods into holding up worlds, and the talented can trick devils out of golden fiddles...)

Alas, I just now realized that bite now only does one type of damage instead of all three. That's it, Worst Edition Ever.

[Seerow]

I disagree with this. I think magic being more powerful should only be so if it's higher level. A 20th level wizard and a 20th level fighter should be equally powerful overall, otherwise what's the point of levels?

(On the other hand, I would also do away with straight fighters. In my house rules, everyone has some kind of supernatural, psionic, or magical abilities built in by 20th level, since it just goes with the territory of that level.)

More and more I've been leaning towards agreeing with your last statement. What has me torn at the moment is debating if Warmind style prestige classes becoming mandatory is the way to go, or some sort of ACF or template set up where the Fighter can choose to basically graft the abilities from a different power source into his own, to enhance his abilities.

Either way, in 3.5, a Fighter or Rogue with no outside power source really doesn't have a place past level 6 or so. 4e giving the Fighter his own Power Source lets him remain competitive in combat, but still not do anything really out of combat (and also concurrently limiting what magic can do).

I'm thinking a higher level Fighter/Rogue could still have martial maneuvers at the heart of their main capabilities and skill sets, but they definitely need the boost from an outside power source to keep up in terms of warding off magical effects, movement, and world shaping, if you want to keep magic users capable of doing awesome things. So the real trick becomes less about how a guy who has nothing but exceptional combat training keeps up with demigods, and more about where to draw the line of how much what he can do comes from those other sources.

[EatAtEmrakuls]

Oh wow.

The survey is awful.

"Does this feel like a D&D Cleric?"

How about "Was this fun?" or "Was this balanced?"

No surprise really, this was never meant to be a meaningful playtest.

[noparlpf]

I disagree with this. I think magic being more powerful should only be so if it's higher level. A 20th level wizard and a 20th level fighter should be equally powerful overall, otherwise what's the point of levels?

(On the other hand, I would also do away with straight fighters. In my house rules, everyone has some kind of supernatural, psionic, or magical abilities built in by 20th level, since it just goes with the territory of that level.)

So what really needs to be done, if one wants mundane classes to stay mundane, is to scale back on casting progression.