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

[Menteith]

WotC fluff continues onward in its trademark style, their understanding of medieval equipment is as good as ever. More specifically, the fluff is atrocious and an exercise in using a lot of words to say very little....

I wouldn't mind it if the fluff wasn't mechanically expressed. Stuff like "Thieves' Cant" (all Rogues have a secret language, shared between a criminal underground) doesn't make sense for every Rogue, and restricts characters pretty randomly (all Rogues need to be criminal/familiar with the criminal underworld, at minimum). Was hoping to get away from stuff like that. Will report more after I finish reading through it.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

[...]and they still haven't abandoned their practice of completely absurd weapon weights (6 pound one handed weapons? 25 pound two handed weapons? Really?).

To be fair, equipment "weight" has supposedly been intended to represent bulkiness as well from 3.0 on, so that you can sort-of represent that, say, a 3-pound sword is more annoying to carry in your backpack than a 3-pound metal disk without having to take size, shape, and density into account for encumbrance. Not that that makes it any more accurate, it just gives the devs a good excuse for ignoring weight-related complaints for so long.

[Knaight]

I wouldn't mind it if the fluff wasn't mechanically expressed. Stuff like "Thieves' Cant" (all Rogues have a secret language, shared between a criminal underground) doesn't make sense for every Rogue, and restricts characters pretty randomly (all Rogues need to be criminal/familiar with the criminal underworld, at minimum). Was hoping to get away from stuff like that. Will report more after I finish reading through it.

Read the Race fluff in particular. It's embarrassingly bad, though refluffing it is also incredibly simple. On other topics, some of the skill names need serious work, particularly the ones related to perception.

On other topics, I do think they need to rethink how class feature like powers are distributed, as some of them make a lot more sense in background. For instance, Thieves' Cant makes a lot more sense attached to the Thief background (and even more sense as part of an optional feat, but I'm not getting into that).

[Flickerdart]

25 pound two handed weapons? Really?

Halflings weigh about 25 pounds, don't they? This is an important precedent for a melee weapon to make.

[Ashdate]

I'm really glad they getting BACK TO BASICS. No more of that "Dragonborn" and "Tiefling" junk! Three different kinds of elves is more like it! /sarcasm

[Dublock]

That thief language should be in the background.

I like the backgrounds and Specialties so far. They are not perfect but they are looking like something I could use in the game. (Am I the only one that thought when reading the Bounty Hunter "Oblivion, Dark brother hood campaign setting").

I do like the fact that they did add in character creation and looked at the equipment and armor although I admit I only did a quick glance and assumed since they mentioned it in the summary.

I am happy to see the skill bonuses due to leveling back (not sure if its called that but thats what it is). I didn't like 4E version and this looks more like it.

Also Multi-classing can be interesting, looks more like 3.5e judging on character creation.

[Janus]

Read the Race fluff in particular. It's embarrassingly bad,

In how many editions have we been told that elves are slow to make friends and even slower to forget them? I'm a little tired of seeing that line.

[Craft (Cheese)]

They've actually taken several steps backwards from 4E as far as I'm concerned. Humans actually had something of a distinct character in 4E but now they're back to being "The boring generic guys."

[Dublock]

They've actually taken several steps backwards from 4E as far as I'm concerned. Humans actually had something of a distinct character in 4E but now they're back to being "The boring generic guys."

I agree but to be honest I think they will change it if we provide that feedback, they seem to be listening and its the first real iteration of character creation/races.

[Togath]

Have they added sunder rules yet?, In the last session of the playtest campaign I tried to smash open a chest with magic missiles, but it was ruled I only broke the potions inside for some reason, and somehow left the outside intact.

[Knaight]

Have they added sunder rules yet?, In the last session of the playtest campaign I tried to smash open a chest with magic missiles, but it was ruled I only broke the potions inside for some reason, and somehow left the outside intact.

They had them last time, in the form of a vague strength check. Given the way they handle DCs, I'm actually okay with this, though I'd personally rule for an Intelligence check when sundering with a spell.

[Togath]

Ah, though it does seem odd to have an ability check determining if you cna break something, rather then giving the tchest/cahin/door hit points, as it seems like enough blows with hammer, or burning the thing could damage it. How was whether or not you could break something handled in 4E?

[Oracle_Hunter]

How was whether or not you could break something handled in 4E?

Poorly.

WotC does not do a good job of figuring out object damage rules for whatever reason.

[Togath]

Ah, that would explain it, and, aye, I also feel that wotc hasn't done a very good job with rules for breaking things, which has always seemed odd to me, as it seems like it could be fun to have more detailed rules for that sort of thing

[Oracle_Hunter]

Ah, that would explain it, and, aye, I also feel that wotc hasn't done a very good job with rules for breaking things, which has always seemed odd to me, as it seems like it could be fun to have more detailed rules for that sort of thing

My work around was making all melee attacks auto-crits (but no boosts like Sneak Attack or Crit-triggered powers) and giving all objects Damage Resistance based on material. It worked alright when it needed to be used but it was a kludge and completely ignored WotC's "vehicle" rules.

Also: PA D&D Next Podcast Part 2

[Meltheim]

Have they added sunder rules yet?, In the last session of the playtest campaign I tried to smash open a chest with magic missiles, but it was ruled I only broke the potions inside for some reason, and somehow left the outside intact.

This is actually specifically addressed in the module. Mishandle the chest and potions break. Don't worry too much.

[The-Mage-King]

Any word on running pbp games for the playtest? Out of curiousity.

[Zombimode]

Just flipping through the Bestiary. Although there is stuff I like, the Exp values are all over the place. It looks like there were different methods used for calculating the exp values. As is, the exp values are pretty unusable.

[Togath]

Any word on running pbp games for the playtest? Out of curiousity.

I'm not sure if anyone is running a pbp, but there is a skype campaign (I'm currently playing the first playtest document's wizard)going on currently(just entered and nearly had a few party members die in one of the caves, after fighting either some hobgoblins or some bugbears, I wasn't 100% sure which, they may also have been orcs)

[The-Mage-King]

I'm not sure if anyone is running a pbp, but there is a skype campaign (I'm currently playing the first playtest document's wizard)going on currently(just entered and nearly had a few party members die in one of the caves, after fighting either some hobgoblins or some bugbears, I wasn't 100% sure which, they may also have been orcs)

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

[Togath]

Just took a look at the 2nd playtest packet, and it makes me wonder, who wrote it, and what was he thinking?, It’s worse then if you gave a blind monkey a typewriter, and as far as I see it anyway, it's like they learned little, or, nothing from any of the previous editions, the wizard for example gets only about 1-2 non blasting spells per spell level(why would someone want to play a blaster wizard?, or did they make resistances to damage less common?), and the fighter mostly just as bonus feats as class features(why cant the do something like the warblade?), and they seemed to have hired an idiot to write fluff for races(why did they even feel the need to add fluff for them?, they were fine as they were).
Do they listen to feedback(if they do, then i might start sending them emails with my veiw that they classes are too plain, and they've added excess fluff)?, it's like they've never taken a look at optimization threads detailing 3.5 or pathfinder.
It mostly frustrates me that hosuerules are required to really have fun with the system, and it hasn't even been released yet(or is this how most playtest games are?, i've never actually seen an in progress one until this one)

[Dublock]

The Wizard only getting a few non-blaster spells is something that I like because more utility spells means more likely to be broken like 3.5. All the top tier had spells and options to do anything and occasionally everything. The more they limit options the more likely they can lessen the gap between spell casters and melee. If its just damage in different forms it is a lot easier to balance out.

Judging how the fighter was last play test and the one in the new packet, they made great progress and I am happy with it. I expect them to continue working on it.

The fluff on races is just bad. But as someone else said, that can be fixed by them or we can just re-work it.

[Zombimode]

It mostly frustrates me that hosuerules are required to really have fun with the system, and it hasn't even been released yet(or is this how most playtest games are?, i've never actually seen an in progress one until this one)

See, I think this is actually a big issue. It's a common problem with any kind of open-betas: a large chunk of the audience has no experience whatsoever with testing material, or the process, goals and methods of testing in general, as well as the kind of actually useful feedback.
Open betas are always a risk for the developers because of false expectations of the audience.

In essence, you shouldn't be frustrated that an unfinished product is in fact unfinished.

Instead, concentrate on what is actually there and try to judge it with the available information. Always keep in mind, that we dont look at the full picture. Ie. we can not judge, how the Fighter fighter prowress faires in comparsion to the Barbarians, because we have no information on that class.

It surprises me that they bothered with fluff text for the races. I haven't read it because this is not a "how to you like the fluff"-playtest, but if its really that bad, thats usefull feedback.


Some dicussion on your points:

the wizard for example gets only about 1-2 non blasting spells per spell level(why would someone want to play a blaster wizard?, or did they make resistances to damage less common?)

Yeah, spell list as is could be a bit more varied. But I wouldn't worry about it until its clear that we look at a supposedly complete list.
I hadn't the time to go through the spells in detail. How are the spells on their own? Any glaring mistakes?

and the fighter mostly just as bonus feats as class features(why cant the do something like the warblade?)

Strange that you got this perception. In the new playtest, the fighters main classfeature is actually an unique mechanic. In fact, the fighter does not gain any more feats that other classes.
The lists of fighting styles so far isn't all that wide. Also, I'm not sure if the fighter chooses one style at level 1 and no other over the course of the 5 levels, or if he gets an additional fighting style at level 3 and level 5.
If its the later, the fighter grows to be an extremely flexible warrior. If its the later, the narrowness of the fighter would be a point of my critique.
In any case, the Fighting Styles are actually something akin to the maneuvers.


Edit: Something to add on my own:
HP are back to max.HD at 1st level plus (HD + 0.5) per level + con mod*level.
I don't think that I like this choice. The widely fluctuation HP over the course of the levels were always something I didn't like with D&D. And I think it goes a bit against the course of reducing the power difference of levels that is otherwise present in D&D Next.
Thoughts on this?

[Dienekes]

So looking through it briefly now and a few things caught my eye.
1) a lot of seemingly empty levels. Which isn't exactly a bad thing, I guess, but it seems weird.

2) Skills: On the very first page on Backgrounds we get this:

When you attempt a task or action that involves a skill in which you are trained, you use your skill modifier in place of your ability modifier.

Training: A skill has an underlying ability. Your modifier when making checks using that skill equals 3 + the ability modifier associated with the skill

So is it skill modifier or skill modifier+ability modifier? Make up your mind.

3) Armor is weird. For normal armors we get Leather in light, studded leather and scale in medium, and ring, chain, banded, splint, and plate in heavy. So things really got jumbled up, and Splin and Banded are the exact same thing. That just seems lazy. Medium armor again seems pretty dumb, since your dex is maxed at +2 so for the same cost as Dragon scale you could get Plate for an additional +1 to your AC. Overall it seems disappointing still, and as it stands this would be the first thing I'd personally homebrew to fix.

4) Weaponry weights, always funny. Actually I had some hope here. Katana's 3 lbs that is within the realm of realism. Good job. Bastard sword... 10 lbs. Are you serious? They were .5-1 lb heavier than katanas at most. No one could swing a 10 lb one-handed axe and make it useable. And it doesn't make sense for it to be "encumbrance" instead of weight either since both swords just jut out from your hip the same way, and if anything the axe would be easier to carry than the sword, and the longspear would be one of the hardest to carry around without annoyance and that only has a weight of 5.

[Yora]

Are specializations the same as traits?

[Menteith]

Yeah, spell list as is could be a bit more varied. But I wouldn't worry about it until its clear that we look at a supposedly complete list. I hadn't the time to go through the spells in detail. How are the spells on their own? Any glaring mistakes?

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.

- The spell descriptor layout isn't defined as much as I'd like, and some pretty key information is missing from some of the spells. For example, Web doesn't seem to have a duration - Web currently lasts forever. Many other spells have key information somewhat hidden inside their decriptions; I wish for a small summation of the mechanics of the spell at the top, just for speed of reference and clarity (Range, School, Duration, etc).

- There are random spells that can't be resisted. Sleep doesn't allow for a Save/Resisted Check/Attack Roll - it simply knocks out people. Why can't spells like Silence be resisted?

- 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.

- The Cure line heals living targets and does nothing to undead, but the Inflict line hurts living and heals Undead. Pretty easy fix, but weird right now.

- 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.

[Yora]

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.

But on the other hand, weapon attacks stay the same all the time. This is exactly the quadratic-wizard problem that is dealt with here. The current form might be a bit blunt, but I think it's a good start how else spells can become more efficient over time than to have all of them grow at a uniform pace.

[Yora]

Has there been any official statement about gelantinous cubes and skeletons not having an Int score, and the gray ooze and giant centipede not having a Cha score?

That would appear as an error to me.

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.
But we havn't seen any incorporeal creatures yet, let's see how they'll be dealing with that.

[TomPliss]

3) Armor is weird. [...] Medium armor again seems pretty dumb, since your dex is maxed at +2 so for the same cost as Dragon scale you could get Plate for an additional +1 to your AC. Overall it seems disappointing still, and as it stands this would be the first thing I'd personally homebrew to fix.

Except you won't have proficiency in heavy ?
By the way, wasn't there something about armor penalty to magic ?

- 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.

I think there are the same in 4e (didn't play another D&D)...
They may try one of each spell school, as it will be easier for GMs to give those spells to monsters if they actually are here...

[Menteith]

But on the other hand, weapon attacks stay the same all the time. This is exactly the quadratic-wizard problem that is dealt with here. The current form might be a bit blunt, but I think it's a good start how else spells can become more efficient over time than to have all of them grow at a uniform pace.

Damage from weapons ramps up at later levels (Sneak Attack, Expertise Die). While the weapon damage stays the same, hitting someone with that weapon is going to do increasingly more. This just means that people wouldn't have a use for many low level spells.