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

[Draz74]

I have mixed feelings about those abilities. The parts I like about them are that WotC isn't afraid to let fighters do damage and a combat maneuver with the same action, and that they're not putting usage limits on them (at least so far); if you know how to knock someone over, you can keep doing that.

On the other hand, the lack of logical constraints that makes a Str 8 wizard and a Large horse equally easy to knock over is not a good thing in my book, and I'm not a fan of the lack of customizability. 3e fighters might not have had all that many options, but at least they could pick and choose what they got, whereas currently you have you have to be one particular sort of fighter to be good at knocking people over and a different particular sort of fighter to be good at tumbling. Unless they're going to provide other, more selectable class abilities, they really need to open things up a bit more...and honestly, most of those abilities don't seem to be worth an entire level's worth of ability slots as it stands.

No disagreements here.

You're assuming they'll be separate classes. If paladin is a subclass of fighter and berserker is a specialty, they'd have access to CS dice as well. Given the three-tier setup they have, I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the way they're going.

I would. They got too much flak for the 4e PHB1 not having some of the "classic" D&D classes ... and in 5e, they're very concerned about preserving popular sacred cows. That includes the Paladin, Ranger, and Druid classes, at the very least. Probably Bard too. Others (Monk, Assassin, Psion ...) are more debatable.

Besides, the podcast gives us a very recent update: for a while they were leaning towards making the Warlock a sub-class of Wizard, but now they're back to planning on it as an independent class.

In fact, that's how 2e worked on a big-picture level with the class/subclass/kit structure, and that's how I've been structuring my 3e revamp to try to give some of the more niche classes and mechanics a way to exist (thanks for making me look unoriginal, WotC! ), so it's definitely doable. I just don't know if WotC has the guts to stick with that instead of their usual "release a bazillion classes" model.

You're simplifying the 2e organization a bit. "Kits" were often more like PrCs than Specialties. And even if Paladin, Ranger, Druid, and Bard were officially toted as "variants" of the Fighter, Priest, and Thief classes, they were definitely treated de facto as separate classes.

As to the question of whether I'd like to see them go this route, it actually varies widely between archetypes.

Spoiler

Show

I personally would have no problem with Druids being a subclass of Cleric (although I think Cleric should be renamed Priest). For example, a Druid is just a Cleric with the Animal/Plant/Weather Domain (or a Nature domain that takes some aspects from each), with a Specialty that grants an animal companion. (And several of the Animal Domain spells are shapeshift effects.)

On the other hand, I don't know if I could ever be satisfied with Ranger being absorbed into this kind of consolidated system. Ranger has too much rogue in it to be a viable Fighter subclass, too much magic (traditionally) too. Making it a Specialty doesn't work, because then it couldn't be combined with the Archer or Dual Wielder specialties. I guess it could be done as a Rogue sub-class. But I think making it independent works better.

Paladin is somewhere in between. What I'd really prefer for the Paladin is that it be an "Advanced Specialty" (or whatever they want to call it) for multiclassed Fighter/Clerics. But if it has to be available from Level 1 ... well, making it a separate class is ugly, because it would have to be better at fighting than the War Cleric, without making the War Cleric useless. Making it a Fighter Subclass ... just doesn't sit right, fluff-wise. Too magical. Making it a specialty makes it incompatible with other appropriate specialties, such as Guardian. I guess it could just be a re-fluff of the War Cleric, but that will lead to people complaining that their favorite class is "missing." And several of these options are missing the traditional connection the Paladin is supposed to have to Charisma.

and they gave various benefits like shaping spells to turn bursts into lines or avoid allies in AoE, or combining energy types for different damage types or extra status effects, and so forth.

Ah, so, kind of like various metamagic effects. I'd be ok with Traditions being something on that level.

where you have a "stormlord" tradition (all about lightning, thunder, fogs, and such) instead of an "evoker" and a "diabolist" tradition (all about summoning devils, granting devil traits, and such) instead of a "conjurer," it could work out fairly well.

See, my initial gut reaction is that those things would be better as Specialties rather than Traditions. I'd like to be able to put them on a Cleric or Warlock.

The easy solution to that is to simply not publish a [class/subclass/specialty] if its theme is already covered by one of the other two.

Even if WotC manages to resist that temptation, you'd better believe Sub-Class vs. Specialty will still be confusing to new players. "Wait, I thought Lurker was my Scheme. What do you mean it's my Specialty?"

[Menteith]

I could see something like Maze requiring an intelligence check (which is already does in 3.5).

[Starbuck_II]

Touch AC is now a Dexterity saving throw. I like that.

Though personally, I think that turns the rogue into a warrior class, and the game should have a thief class.

Yeah, it is up to player if he wants a Thief (hide/snipe) or a Rogue (flank and shiv) so I think the classes are fine, but I wish there was more Pregens.

[Camelot]

Can anyone find where it says what your AC is when you're not wearing armor? I'm assuming 10 + Dex mod.

[noparlpf]

I've barely skimmed things, but what I've noticed is Sneak Attack. That is a lot of damage. I guess it'll be harder to get Sneak Attacks in in 5e?

Can anyone find where it says what your AC is when you're not wearing armor? I'm assuming 10 + Dex mod.

Doesn't say in "How To Play", or under the Armour section in "Equipment", but I'm guessing 10+Dex too. Leather Armour is 11+Dex and that's the most basic armour now, so 10+Dex makes sense.
But it would be nice (for beginners) if they explicitly say that somewhere.

[Starbuck_II]

I've barely skimmed things, but what I've noticed is Sneak Attack. That is a lot of damage. I guess it'll be harder to get Sneak Attacks in in 5e?



Doesn't say in "How To Play", or under the Armour section in "Equipment", but I'm guessing 10+Dex too. Leather Armour is 11+Dex and that's the most basic armour now, so 10+Dex makes sense.
But it would be nice (for beginners) if they explicitly say that somewhere.

True, but we better estimate it at 10+2x Dex till we know for sure. This is why monstrous creatures like trolls rarely wear armor

[Nu]

The latest update makes me think I'd be willing to play it to give it a fair(er) shot, though I still don't see much that would make me want to play this instead of 4th edition at the moment. That's still a step-up from the last packet though, which I barely gave a second look to. One look at the fighter class from that made me put it away...

I still don't like how a lot of monsters are boring stat blocks with basic attacks, though. As a DM, one of my favorite things about 4th edition was the Adventure Tools program and making up monsters with various interesting powers and effects to mimic existing monsters in the books (typically with slight variations), but DnD Next just doesn't seem to have that. The monsters strike me as boring. And I really don't like so many of them using the same spell sets as players, though at least they're actually listing the effects of them in the stat block now so we don't have to flip back and forth between documents to see them. I'd really like to see more work put into the mechanical aspects of the monsters.

[Dienekes]

So I just read the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. That made me chuckle. Kinda misses the point of picking up a second weapon don't it?

[TheOOB]

The latest update makes me think I'd be willing to play it to give it a fair(er) shot, though I still don't see much that would make me want to play this instead of 4th edition at the moment. That's still a step-up from the last packet though, which I barely gave a second look to. One look at the fighter class from that made me put it away...

I still don't like how a lot of monsters are boring stat blocks with basic attacks, though. As a DM, one of my favorite things about 4th edition was the Adventure Tools program and making up monsters with various interesting powers and effects to mimic existing monsters in the books (typically with slight variations), but DnD Next just doesn't seem to have that. The monsters strike me as boring. And I really don't like so many of them using the same spell sets as players, though at least they're actually listing the effects of them in the stat block now so we don't have to flip back and forth between documents to see them. I'd really like to see more work put into the mechanical aspects of the monsters.

Do remember that D&D Next is still in what could be called Alpha development, and I wouldn't be suprised if the monsters in the playtest document are there because the game needs monsters to playtest. So far most of what is there seems to be focused around creating PC's, we'll be more monsters and tools for making monsters in the future.

Also remember that D&D next combat is supposed to be quicker, simpler, and more deadly. Most monsters don't have more than an attack or two and a special ability because they won't last long enough to do more. It is not only possible, but likely some monsters will be taken down in one or two hits, so only powerful or unique monsters need to have a list of powers that will last them more than a couple of rounds. Also it seems D&D Next is going for something between 3e and 4e in monster design. In 3e most monster powers were spell-like abilities, in 4e every monster had unique powers, now there seems to be a mix. I like monsters having spells, it makes them easier to design and make tactics, but unique abilities also keep things interesting.

So I just read the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. That made me chuckle. Kinda misses the point of picking up a second weapon don't it?

I think it's fine. While it's true TWF doesn't increase your damage output, it is not useless. First of all, you can attack two different targets a round, which could be very useful if you are fighting weak, low-hp foes. Second, if your weapons have different abilities, you could use them both, damage is halved, secondary effects of the attack are not. Third, even agienst a single foe, it gives you a sort of advantage. Since you roll two attack rolls, you are more likely to deal at least some damage, at the expense of having a chance of only doing half damage if the attack misses. Considering that randomness favors the NPC, having a more reliable chance of dealing damage can be beneficial(though it comes at the cost of no shield/heavy weapons).

Imagine if your party rogue had an ability that granted them advantage agienst any opponent hit by an ally. Considering how nasty Sneak Attack is, I would see TWF(or rapid shot) as a very valid way of increasing the odds of the rogue being able to sneak attack.

[Starbuck_II]

Speaking of monsters, Elites seem to have the ability to attack or cast sprels twice/turn.
Except the few who have monster buffing powers.

TWfing is useful if the weapons have special powers like Keen, flaming, poison, etc I guess.

[TheOOB]

Speaking of monsters, Elites seem to have the ability to attack or cast sprels twice/turn.
Except the few who have monster buffing powers.

That sentence should read "Many elite monsters have the ability to make multiple attacks or take multiple actions on their turn". or "It is not uncommong for elite monsters to be able to attack multiple times in one turn". Your post seems to imply that is some kind of inherent quality of being elite, which it is not.

[Starbuck_II]

That sentence should read "Many elite monsters have the ability to make multiple attacks or take multiple actions on their turn". or "It is not uncommong for elite monsters to be able to attack multiple times in one turn". Your post seems to imply that is some kind of inherent quality of being elite, which it is not.

Semantics, but yes, you are saying it clearer.

[Nu]

Also remember that D&D next combat is supposed to be quicker, simpler, and more deadly. Most monsters don't have more than an attack or two and a special ability because they won't last long enough to do more. It is not only possible, but likely some monsters will be taken down in one or two hits, so only powerful or unique monsters need to have a list of powers that will last them more than a couple of rounds.

That's fine and all, but it still stifles me to see so many lines that list nothing but the amount of damage the attack deals. It strikes me as a step backwards, even if it is intentional.

And I should point out it's not that I want MORE abilities, I just want the abilities they have to be more interesting. I'm constantly seeing "melee attack - damage" and "ranged attack - damage" and that bothers me.

Also it seems D&D Next is going for something between 3e and 4e in monster design. In 3e most monster powers were spell-like abilities, in 4e every monster had unique powers, now there seems to be a mix. I like monsters having spells, it makes them easier to design and make tactics, but unique abilities also keep things interesting.

I understand that it's supposed to be more like 3E design, but that doesn't mean I have to like it

Another thing that kind of worries me that I didn't see before is that the static values on many of the attacks seem rather small, and the dice rather big. That could make combat a bit more random luck-based than I'd like. I mean, I get that a certain amount of randomness is inherent in a system based on dice rolls, but given that all of the numbers in DnD Next are smaller, the damage between 3 damage and 12 damage (on a 1d10+2 attack for example) seems massive. That's at a glance though and maybe in play it works out better or maybe I need to think about it some more.

[TheOOB]

Semantics, but yes, you are saying it clearer.

Semantics is important in a Roleplaying game, especially D&D. Game rules needs to be written like a legal document, that is to say they need to be written in a way as to leave no ambiguity as to their meaning. While it is true that a GM is allowed to, and encouraged to make any changes they wish to the rules, it is something that should be done intentionally. If the rules one DM uses are different from anthers, it should be because they decided to change something, not because they interpenetrated the rules differently.

Speaking of, here are a couple ambiguous/confusing things I noted while reading the play test documents. I could have just missed it, that is possible.

If someone gains spells from a source outside of a class, what is their magical attack/save DC

If a spellcaster makes a magical attack, do they add their magical attribute modifier to the attacks damage. The rules of play pdf implies yes, the spells and pregen character implies no.

Do you need a healer's kit to spend more than 1 hit die during a short rest. The resting rules imply no, the healer's kit rules imply yes. Also, does the healing knack feat make resting healing dice maximised even if you don't use a healer's kit?

If you want a silvered weapon, can you silver an exisiting weapon, or does the weapon need to be silvered at it's creation?

[TheOOB]

That's fine and all, but it still stifles me to see so many lines that list nothing but the amount of damage the attack deals. It strikes me as a step backwards, even if it is intentional.

And I should point out it's not that I want MORE abilities, I just want the abilities they have to be more interesting. I'm constantly seeing "melee attack - damage" and "ranged attack - damage" and that bothers me.

I guess I don't know what your looking for. I don't recall a single monster in the playtest that doesn't have some sort of special ability, even if it's just a small boost when fighting in groups, or the ability to deal extra damage in exchange for a disadvantaged attack. Plenty of 4e monsters had attacks that didn't have special abilities attached to them, and plenty of Next monsters will have interesting abilities, we're just looking at the basic bare bones low level monsters they threw together for this.

That said, remember that one of the design goals is to get away from the long combats and huge ability lists of 4e. Both player's and monsters are not suposed to have stacks of cards representing their abilities anymore. A basic monster that is ment to be fought in groups should one have 1, maybe two minor special abilities to keep book keeping down to a minimum and allow for quick fights. If you want longer fights with more interesting monsters and powers, you can do that, you can even do that for every fight, but hour+ fights with forced movement and status effects flying around from everywhere should be a choice, not a baseline.

The fact is 4e plays less like an RPG, and more like a slow turn based tactical combat PC game. I don't want every combat to be a huge production. Sometimes I just want Orcs to try to hit the player with axes.

[Seerow]

I think it's fine. While it's true TWF doesn't increase your damage output, it is not useless. First of all, you can attack two different targets a round, which could be very useful if you are fighting weak, low-hp foes. Second, if your weapons have different abilities, you could use them both, damage is halved, secondary effects of the attack are not. Third, even agienst a single foe, it gives you a sort of advantage. Since you roll two attack rolls, you are more likely to deal at least some damage, at the expense of having a chance of only doing half damage if the attack misses. Considering that randomness favors the NPC, having a more reliable chance of dealing damage can be beneficial(though it comes at the cost of no shield/heavy weapons).

Imagine if your party rogue had an ability that granted them advantage agienst any opponent hit by an ally. Considering how nasty Sneak Attack is, I would see TWF(or rapid shot) as a very valid way of increasing the odds of the rogue being able to sneak attack.

Problem is, TWFing/Rapid Shot explicitly halves all damage. At the same time, Combat Superiority and Sneak Attack both apply only once per round (as do all similar buffs for casters that I've noticed). This means that using Two Weapon Fighting is actually a damage loss to use. Even if you hit twice, you lost half your sneak attack damage in doing so.

So it is ONLY good for minion clearing, or for rider effects like push/prone. The first is pretty niche, and the second one is not what two weapon fighting has ever really been about, and is a pretty disappointing role for the style to fill. Both combined really isn't worth a feat given the drop in damage output accompanied with it. Really feels like it should have been a flurry option that was baked in that anyone could use.

[Seerow]

Both player's and monsters are not suposed to have stacks of cards representing their abilities anymore.

If players aren't supposed to have stacks of cards representing their abilities, why does a Wizard have 30 potential spells known by level 5? Why are we looking at a progression that will end with spellcasters with over 30 spells per day?

I'm still seeing big stacks of abilities, just firmly in the hands of casters, at everyone else's expense.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Fear and charm spells already exist. Cause Fear, Charm Person, Command and Suggestion all use a Wisdom save. Mirror Image and Silence, the only illusions I found, allow no save at all.

You know, you're right, I forgot about those. I also remember wondering why those didn't use Cha saves, since they were some of the exact examples used in one of the preview articles as to the sort of spells that would use Cha saves.

With the spells presented so far, including charms and illusions, it just looks like Ref=Dex, Will=Wis, and Fort=Con. The weakness I see with this structure is that if your class uses Str, Int, or Cha as their primary stat you end up weaker than a class that uses Con, Dex, or Wis. If stats are going to be so important, it'd be nice if they were equally valuable.

Yeah, if they're using just Dex/Con/Wis there's no benefit at all to doing 6-stat saves at all and they might as well go back to saves as derived stats.

I would. They got too much flak for the 4e PHB1 not having some of the "classic" D&D classes ... and in 5e, they're very concerned about preserving popular sacred cows. That includes the Paladin, Ranger, and Druid classes, at the very least. Probably Bard too. Others (Monk, Assassin, Psion ...) are more debatable.

They did make it clear that all prior classes would be present "in some form," leaving the door open for that sort of thing. And as long as you can re-create your prior-edition character of class X, I don't think they'll get too much flak for having to write "Fighter (Paladin)" on their sheet instead of "Paladin." Particularly given that it worked that way in AD&D and that they at least have all the classes there somehow unlike with the 4e PHB.

Besides, the podcast gives us a very recent update: for a while they were leaning towards making the Warlock a sub-class of Wizard, but now they're back to planning on it as an independent class.

Hmm. Haven't listened to the podcast, thanks for the heads-up. I should do that.

You're simplifying the 2e organization a bit. "Kits" were often more like PrCs than Specialties. And even if Paladin, Ranger, Druid, and Bard were officially toted as "variants" of the Fighter, Priest, and Thief classes, they were definitely treated de facto as separate classes.

They were treated as separate classes, but paladins and rangers were still "as fighters, but with additional X," which is what subclasses basically are here. Being subclasses doesn't mean they have any less of an individual identity, it just means you can share mechanics and high-level function calls to simplify and unify things where you couldn't necessarily do that with entirely separate classes.

As to the question of whether I'd like to see them go this route, it actually varies widely between archetypes.

Spoiler

Show

I personally would have no problem with Druids being a subclass of Cleric (although I think Cleric should be renamed Priest). For example, a Druid is just a Cleric with the Animal/Plant/Weather Domain (or a Nature domain that takes some aspects from each), with a Specialty that grants an animal companion. (And several of the Animal Domain spells are shapeshift effects.)

On the other hand, I don't know if I could ever be satisfied with Ranger being absorbed into this kind of consolidated system. Ranger has too much rogue in it to be a viable Fighter subclass, too much magic (traditionally) too. Making it a Specialty doesn't work, because then it couldn't be combined with the Archer or Dual Wielder specialties. I guess it could be done as a Rogue sub-class. But I think making it independent works better.

Paladin is somewhere in between. What I'd really prefer for the Paladin is that it be an "Advanced Specialty" (or whatever they want to call it) for multiclassed Fighter/Clerics. But if it has to be available from Level 1 ... well, making it a separate class is ugly, because it would have to be better at fighting than the War Cleric, without making the War Cleric useless. Making it a Fighter Subclass ... just doesn't sit right, fluff-wise. Too magical. Making it a specialty makes it incompatible with other appropriate specialties, such as Guardian. I guess it could just be a re-fluff of the War Cleric, but that will lead to people complaining that their favorite class is "missing." And several of these options are missing the traditional connection the Paladin is supposed to have to Charisma.

They could always do it like the Mass Effect class system, if you're familiar with that: one class for each source (Soldier/Adept/Engineer) and one hybrid for each combination (Vanguard/Sentinel/Infilltrator). So instead of having just Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric as the only superclasses, you also have a martial/divine mix class that paladins, blackguards, and similar are subclasses of (call it Cavalier for nostalgia's sake ), a roguish/divine mix class for rangers, monks, and similar, and so forth. That gives you some of the benefits of the subclass system (having a smaller number of unique mechanics to unify classes, 10 in this case instead of 4) with some of the benefits of the classes-only system (being able to represent hybrid concepts well).

See, my initial gut reaction is that those things would be better as Specialties rather than Traditions. I'd like to be able to put them on a Cleric or Warlock.

Could go either way. Why are wu jen, sorcerer, shugenja, and favored soul separate caster classes instead of a set of ACFs for wizards or clerics? Why are swashbuckler and scout not just a set of bonus feats for the fighter or ACFs for the rogue? (Yes, I know Swashbuckler basically is a rogue ACF at this point with Daring Outlaw, but the point stands.) You could do a stormlord as a set of weather-themed modifiers, or as a full class with weather-themed spells and all, it just depends on how much they change the base class.

[Starbuck_II]

Could go either way. Why are wu jen, sorcerer, shugenja, and favored soul separate caster classes instead of a set of ACFs for wizards or clerics? Why are swashbuckler and scout not just a set of bonus feats for the fighter or ACFs for the rogue? (Yes, I know Swashbuckler basically is a rogue ACF at this point with Daring Outlaw, but the point stands.) You could do a stormlord as a set of weather-themed modifiers, or as a full class with weather-themed spells and all, it just depends on how much they change the base class.

Agreed, Wu jen could be an Alternate class of Wizard to use a PF term.

Shugenja is special: it doesn't fit a Cleric or Wizard.

Favored Soul is an alternate of Cleric.

Spirit Shaman is an archetype of Druid easily.

[Excession]

Speaking of monsters, Elites seem to have the ability to attack or cast sprels twice/turn.
Except the few who have monster buffing powers.

TWfing is useful if the weapons have special powers like Keen, flaming, poison, etc I guess.

The easiest way to make an elite monster in 4e is to double its hit points and give it a second standard action. Looks like they're stuck with that pattern.

For some reason, the monster stat blocks remind me of the cards from the old D&D Miniatures game. I should try some monster vs. monster skirmishes.

[Jokes]

So it is ONLY good for minion clearing

And it isn't all that great for this. Rolling a 1 or 2 on a d6 with a +3 bonus is only 2 damage, which will leave most mooks still standing with 1 or 2 HP.

I'm liking that there is a Necromancer included straight up. But does anyone think it gamebreaking to allow a necromancers skeleton to auto-attack? I hated the "use your action for your companions action" economy of 4e, and the skelly seems pretty weak in combat.

[Nu]

I guess I don't know what your looking for. I don't recall a single monster in the playtest that doesn't have some sort of special ability, even if it's just a small boost when fighting in groups, or the ability to deal extra damage in exchange for a disadvantaged attack. Plenty of 4e monsters had attacks that didn't have special abilities attached to them, and plenty of Next monsters will have interesting abilities, we're just looking at the basic bare bones low level monsters they threw together for this.

There aren't as many in this version of the package, though I think stuff like the zombie and skeleton qualifies, as their "traits" are more or less just "immune to charm" and have no influence on their attacks or general tactics.

That said, remember that one of the design goals is to get away from the long combats and huge ability lists of 4e. Both player's and monsters are not suposed to have stacks of cards representing their abilities anymore. A basic monster that is ment to be fought in groups should one have 1, maybe two minor special abilities to keep book keeping down to a minimum and allow for quick fights. If you want longer fights with more interesting monsters and powers, you can do that, you can even do that for every fight, but hour+ fights with forced movement and status effects flying around from everywhere should be a choice, not a baseline.

The fact is 4e plays less like an RPG, and more like a slow turn based tactical combat PC game. I don't want every combat to be a huge production. Sometimes I just want Orcs to try to hit the player with axes.

I think you're exaggerating the issue here. I generally favored simplicity in design for 4E monsters. But let's take a very basic monster, let's say, the kobold quickblade from the Monster Vault. It has exactly 3 powers (hardly a laundry list, those were supposed to be reserved for elites/solos though that didn't always get practiced), but they all emphasize the monster's role in the encounter--to be a highly mobile skirmisher. The basic attack has a built-in damage bonus for each square the kobold shifts, and as a move action it can shift 3 squares. As a minor action it can shift an additional square. It's very simple, a level 1 creature, but it can cause the PCs some frustration as they try to chase down the kobold harassing them and trying to get at the squishy wizard, especially if the kobold's allies are engaging or disabling the melee line.

Now let's take the level 1 kobold from the playtest. It has three abilities (or powers if you will) as well, the same numbers are the 4E creature. Actually the DnD next subject has one more if you count the trait but I think it's kind of a throwaway (kobold has disadvantage in light). Two of its abilities just deal damage, and its last one is a ability that allows it to give allies a small buff. I guess my problem with this monster is, in my mind, there's nothing particular defining about this monster or its role in a given encounter. The only tactic it encourages is swarm tactics specifically with other kobolds, which is admittedly something. It just doesn't speak to me on the same level, though. I don't feel like this kobold is interesting. It will run up to an opponent, hit or miss it once, and then die. Probably in one hit, given its HP pool of 3. I can't see it doing anything else. There are no tactical implications innate to the monster itself aside from generic swarm tactics for an incredibly minute benefit. And even then it's just for more damage, which sadly seems to be all that most of the common lot get. At least the 4E monster tried to combine its "more damage" trait with something that also made the kobold engaging in combat (high mobility).

Maybe I'm being unreasonable here, but I feel like there's something missing. A spark of life, or evidence the the monsters actually have tactics and are more than just roadbumps for the PCs. Personally, I'm of the opinion that even if a monster is only going to live for 1-3 rounds, I should still strive to make it memorable, or at least something unique about it.

Now, for example, the trap lord is is a pretty decent monster. I just feel like a lot of the monsters in this package are "filler" to filter around the 1-2 interesting monsters that will actually make up the encounter, while the "roles" in 4E gave me something more interesting to work with because I could specifically fit monsters into an encounter and have them work together to challenge the party in various ways, while this package feels more like there are a few monsters that you kill in 1-2 hits while getting to the big one, if there even is a big one.

Also, there's less emphasis on building encounters and I don't like that. I'll fully admit that I don't like the shift away from individual encounters in favor of the overall adventure, so there are probably gonna be a lot of design points in this system I don't agree with. Still, I do feel like I should give it a shot at least, so I can be fair in why I don't like it.

And yes, I am referring to the material in the playtest, an assurance that "there will be more in the future" doesn't do anything for me yet, I'll believe it when I see it

[AgentPaper]

@Nu:

All of that sounds great and all, but in practice, it ends up slowing down the pace of combat a lot. If your players are really into the tactical side of the game, then that could be a fine tradeoff, but for the basic monsters in the core rules, they want something simpler so that the groups that aren't focused on combat tactics can have quick, simple, and fun encounters without having to look through all sorts of alternate rules.

Also, even in a more combat-focused set, there needs to be "filler" encounters that don't really tax the players all that much, either mechanically or tactically. If all of your encounters require a lot of deep thought and planning, you're likely to burn out your players and your DM pretty fast. If instead you just reserve that kind of complexity for a few key encounters, then you make those encounters all the more memorable and exciting. If you really do want to have every encounter be a 2-hour tactics session, that's certainly something you should be able to accomplish through modules, but it shouldn't be the norm.

[Oracle_Hunter]

So it is ONLY good for minion clearing, or for rider effects like push/prone. The first is pretty niche, and the second one is not what two weapon fighting has ever really been about, and is a pretty disappointing role for the style to fill. Both combined really isn't worth a feat given the drop in damage output accompanied with it. Really feels like it should have been a flurry option that was baked in that anyone could use.

Well, to be fair, the Two-Weapon Fighter in 4e could only hit different targets with his At-Will double-attack.

It is basically WotC's way of distinguishing TWF from your standard Striker -- and head off a lot of multi-attack shenanigans that invariably pop up. IMHO, not the worst idea they've had -- particularly if it is easy to stick riders on those attacks. I would very much like to play a Melee Controller

[obryn]

Problem is, TWFing/Rapid Shot explicitly halves all damage. At the same time, Combat Superiority and Sneak Attack both apply only once per round (as do all similar buffs for casters that I've noticed). This means that using Two Weapon Fighting is actually a damage loss to use. Even if you hit twice, you lost half your sneak attack damage in doing so.

I am not altogether certain that, for the purposes of Next combat, Sneak Attack damage would be halved in this case. I know how I'd answer it in 4e (yes, it's halved) but the Next rules aren't so clear yet.

However weak it is, at least it has situational utility. The kobold and goblin hordes of AD&D seem to be back, if the Caves of Chaos were any indication. And weak monsters should stay relevant longer with bounded accuracy.

For sheer uselessness, it has nothing on the Slayer's "Glancing Blow" feat. So you can use your dice if you miss ... but only if you rolled a 10+. It seems, given the rules we're looking at right now, that a 10+ will almost always hit. The highest AC in the Bestiary is 17 for the Dark Priest. The dwarf fighter has a +6 to-hit, and the human has a +7.

I know this isn't an exhaustive bestiary, but I can't imagine monsters with 18+ ACs are common at this level. And even against them, come on... it comes up so infrequently it might as well not even exist.

-O

[Knaight]

For sheer uselessness, it has nothing on the Slayer's "Glancing Blow" feat. So you can use your dice if you miss ... but only if you rolled a 10+. It seems, given the rules we're looking at right now, that a 10+ will almost always hit. The highest AC in the Bestiary is 17 for the Dark Priest. The dwarf fighter has a +6 to-hit, and the human has a +7.

This is particularly obnoxious as they had Reaper in the previous play test, and Reaper was working well as a feature.

[TheOOB]

Problem is, TWFing/Rapid Shot explicitly halves all damage. At the same time, Combat Superiority and Sneak Attack both apply only once per round (as do all similar buffs for casters that I've noticed). This means that using Two Weapon Fighting is actually a damage loss to use. Even if you hit twice, you lost half your sneak attack damage in doing so.

So it is ONLY good for minion clearing, or for rider effects like push/prone. The first is pretty niche, and the second one is not what two weapon fighting has ever really been about, and is a pretty disappointing role for the style to fill. Both combined really isn't worth a feat given the drop in damage output accompanied with it. Really feels like it should have been a flurry option that was baked in that anyone could use.

Wow, you didn't read my post before you replied to it. While it is true TWF doesn't increase your damage(though it does increase the chance you'll do some damage at the cost of giving a chance to do reduced damage). There can be many effects carried by an attack that are not damage, which may make a TWF viable.

If players aren't supposed to have stacks of cards representing their abilities, why does a Wizard have 30 potential spells known by level 5? Why are we looking at a progression that will end with spellcasters with over 30 spells per day?

I'm still seeing big stacks of abilities, just firmly in the hands of casters, at everyone else's expense.

You're really not making any sense. First of all, not everyone wants a ton of abilities. One of the advantages of older editions was that if you wanted a complex class with a ton of abilities, you'd play a wizard or cleric, and if you wanted a more simple class you'd play a fighter or rogue. In 4e you didn't have that choice, you'd have stacks of cards no matter what you played as. Also keep in mind that spells are daily, and cover all manner of effects, not just combat abilities. A wizard can reduce their work load by preparing several copies of the same spells, and won't be using all 30+ of their spells as combat spells

@Nu:

All of that sounds great and all, but in practice, it ends up slowing down the pace of combat a lot. If your players are really into the tactical side of the game, then that could be a fine tradeoff, but for the basic monsters in the core rules, they want something simpler so that the groups that aren't focused on combat tactics can have quick, simple, and fun encounters without having to look through all sorts of alternate rules.

Also, even in a more combat-focused set, there needs to be "filler" encounters that don't really tax the players all that much, either mechanically or tactically. If all of your encounters require a lot of deep thought and planning, you're likely to burn out your players and your DM pretty fast. If instead you just reserve that kind of complexity for a few key encounters, then you make those encounters all the more memorable and exciting. If you really do want to have every encounter be a 2-hour tactics session, that's certainly something you should be able to accomplish through modules, but it shouldn't be the norm.

This

D&D has always been a combat focused game, having sprung from the loins of wargames, but not every campaign, and not ever adventurer or encounter needs to be combat focused itself. 4e was strongly combat focused, you're character had a laundry list of combat abilities and feats, and very little is the way of out of combat utility(even utility powers typically were combat powers, just non offensive ones).

Even a "simple" 4e combat encounter would last a long time due to high hp totals, healing surges, and even minions having activated abilities, and the book keeping could get annoying if you had to keep track of more than 3 or 4 foes or more than 1 or 2 types of foe in the same encounter.

D&D Next, like older editions, is giving you the option of making things easier. Of having combats that are quicker, easier, and simpler for book keeping. Instead of each encounter being a grand battle, there can be some simple skirmishes, where the question is not if the players will win, but how much of their resources will they have left over for the tough battles(with less hp, and all spells being daily, even quick encounters can take a toll of player resources, making them meaningful even if they are easy).

In Next, as a wizard, you have a choice that wasn't present in 4e. In 4e if an encounter was easy, you'd just win with your powerful encounter powers, but in Next you don't have encounter powers. A wizard is nothing without their spells, and their spells are daily. Do you solve the encounter quickly with a couple high level spells, saving the rest of your teams resources, or do you stick to your low level and minor spells, knowing that your team will take more injuries due to a prolonged fight.

[Knaight]

You're really not making any sense. First of all, not everyone wants a ton of abilities. One of the advantages of older editions was that if you wanted a complex class with a ton of abilities, you'd play a wizard or cleric, and if you wanted a more simple class you'd play a fighter or rogue. In 4e you didn't have that choice, you'd have stacks of cards no matter what you played as. Also keep in mind that spells are daily, and cover all manner of effects, not just combat abilities. A wizard can reduce their work load by preparing several copies of the same spells, and won't be using all 30+ of their spells as combat spells.

There's really no reason to attach complexity to the type of character. As is, if you wanted a character to be both a simple class and a mage of some sort, you're out of luck. If you wanted a character to be both a complex class and a warrior of some sort, you're also out of luck. Given that 5e has optional mechanics explicitly built in to alleviate this problem, WotC should be able to avoid screwing it up by putting in big piles of spells.

[AgentPaper]

There's really no reason to attach complexity to the type of character. As is, if you wanted a character to be both a simple class and a mage of some sort, you're out of luck. If you wanted a character to be both a complex class and a warrior of some sort, you're also out of luck. Given that 5e has optional mechanics explicitly built in to alleviate this problem, WotC should be able to avoid screwing it up by putting in big piles of spells.

I think the solution to this problem isn't to take away a ton of the wizard's toys, but rather to give the fighter more toys. This is what WotC did with 4E, and it worked out well, for many people.

However, 4E brought it's own problems, notably that not everyone wants to play really complex characters that have twenty different things to do in a turn, but would rather have a fighter that charges in, smashes stuff up, and has lots of fun.

In the past, this has unfortunately also meant that those players would be woefully inadequate when compared with the more complex classes, with the reasoning that if you work a lot to play a complex character, you should be awarded with higher effectiveness.

With 5E, they seem to be coming to the conclusion that 1) you should be able to play a simple fighter, 2) you should have the option to play a complex fighter, and 3) complexity doesn't need to be tied to effectiveness.

I think the key here is that complexity for the fighter is an option, and we aren't being given a ton of the really deep options for any of the classes yet. Combat Superiority seems to be a nod towards having even the basic fighter be somewhat complex. Most of the time, you probably just want to throw your CS dice at damage, but the abilities have niche purposes that you can also use them for. Importantly, though, none of them are so strong that you need to spend much time thinking about them except for the obvious times when they would be really nice.

Combat Superiority is also a very new mechanic, so it's to be expected that it's rough around the edges, to say the least. You should definitely give them feedback about what's good, what's not, but don't get turned off from the system just because they didn't get it 100% perfect from the start. (I don't know if any of you are doing this, but it can be hard to tell sometimes)

[Nu]

All of that sounds great and all, but in practice, it ends up slowing down the pace of combat a lot. If your players are really into the tactical side of the game, then that could be a fine tradeoff, but for the basic monsters in the core rules, they want something simpler so that the groups that aren't focused on combat tactics can have quick, simple, and fun encounters without having to look through all sorts of alternate rules.

I don't have a problem with their intent to make combat flow faster, however, I still don't like the far less tactical and interesting monster design. When I look to the books and think, "how can I challenge my player characters in a fun manner," the DnD Next Monster book does not give me an easy answer.

The frustrating thing is that it is probably possible, there ARE some good monsters in there. But in 4E, having monsters focused towards a particular idea or concept--and also giving them "roles"--really helped me, as a DM, get into the mindset of "how should this monster work." But for an edition that is trying on a surface level to be more accessible, I think it's actually less so for the Dungeon Master!

Also, even in a more combat-focused set, there needs to be "filler" encounters that don't really tax the players all that much, either mechanically or tactically. If all of your encounters require a lot of deep thought and planning, you're likely to burn out your players and your DM pretty fast. If instead you just reserve that kind of complexity for a few key encounters, then you make those encounters all the more memorable and exciting. If you really do want to have every encounter be a 2-hour tactics session, that's certainly something you should be able to accomplish through modules, but it shouldn't be the norm.

"Filler" encounters that aren't taxing at all are actually more possible in an encounter-based design than in an adventure-based design, because "encounter powers" and more plentiful healing resources mean that an low-level encounter featuring primarily low HP monsters (like 4E minions) will hardly affect the party's resources at all.

D&D has always been a combat focused game, having sprung from the loins of wargames, but not every campaign, and not ever adventurer or encounter needs to be combat focused itself. 4e was strongly combat focused, you're character had a laundry list of combat abilities and feats, and very little is the way of out of combat utility(even utility powers typically were combat powers, just non offensive ones).

Even a "simple" 4e combat encounter would last a long time due to high hp totals, healing surges, and even minions having activated abilities, and the book keeping could get annoying if you had to keep track of more than 3 or 4 foes or more than 1 or 2 types of foe in the same encounter.

Minions shouldn't have triggered abilities very often, if they do then the DM was using the wrong minions or wasn't planning on having it be a "quick" encounter anyway. And it depends on what you mean by "long time," that actually varies a lot from group to group and level by level. But anyway, this thread is about DnD Next, so in order to relate it to that, let me just say that I cannot see an "easy" DnD Next encounter taking a whole lot less time than a DnD 4E encounter. If I had to guess it'd be the medium-to-hard ones where there's a larger difference in time taken. As a 4E DM, however, I still believe it is completely possible to run quick, simple 4E skirmishes, and if you want to you can even run it somewhat rules light to further cut back on time.

Honestly, I don't feel like DnD Next is giving me more options than I had before. You seem to be trying to push very hard that DnD Next is giving us something that wasn't there, but I'm not buying it.

In Next, as a wizard, you have a choice that wasn't present in 4e. In 4e if an encounter was easy, you'd just win with your powerful encounter powers, but in Next you don't have encounter powers. A wizard is nothing without their spells, and their spells are daily. Do you solve the encounter quickly with a couple high level spells, saving the rest of your teams resources, or do you stick to your low level and minor spells, knowing that your team will take more injuries due to a prolonged fight.

There is nothing fun, interesting, or desirable about a wizard sitting in the back and casting magic missile over and over. The fact that this is a choice is a negative thing, not a positive one.