My thoughts on playtest materials

I am, for one, quite fearful for the future. Yeah I understand it is not a finished product, not by a long shot. But after reading through it, I see that most of what I didn’t like in older edition were coming back, and a lot of what I liked in 4th edition going away.

The warrior, as it stand is a bore to play (of course I know you can think out of the box, pushing people with a contest, throwing picies of furniture, and so on and so forth).

“Oh, here is an enemy, what might I do ?” *check the surrondings, the character sheet for thing to do* “oh well, i swing my sword at it”. Next round, *swings*, next round, *swings”. repeat ad nauseum.

I don’t really like this. I know we are promised more thing to do, but yet again the fighter is treated like cannon fodder. 4th edition did have a lot of things right concerning fighters and martial classes right, even if people with high simulationism mindset will tell otherwise.

The thief is a little better, at least there is the sneak attack. And he will be able to throw his own weight for all the exploration and maybe the interaction with npc. The fighter seems pretty poor too in that aspect.

The wizard, I mostly like, because it’s there we see the most remains of 4th edition (the at will minor spells). We’ll have to see how it plays out exactly and where they go with this.

The priest, I don’t like from a mechanical perspective the armored one. Seems to close to the fighter. But the pelor’s one seems okay to me. Closer to the wizard.

I’m not too sure about the advantage/disadvantage rule. There was nothing wrong with a flat +2 when you have advantage.

The scales of xp for monsters seems a bit odd. I don’t really understand why a Troll or a minautor, with their large reserve of hit points, their special abilites rate so low on xp’s. Or why bugbears rate so high (4 bugbears gives more xp than a lonely troll, even if the troll has 10 time more hit points than a bugbear.) That’s mainly a minor problem I think, and not even in the scope of the playtest.

I know it’s fairly long winded, but here is the thought I have reading the playtest material. I don’t intend to play it before we see character creation rules, to see if some of the problems I have are mitigated at that point.

I have not given hope with 5E, but for me, it looks like a wrong start.


I read all class and the rules for playtest and i'm very annoyed.

- return of the save rolls: fixed defenses were a good idea in d&d4; less dice rolls is better, it's accelerate the combat rounds and the only d20 roll for save ends are light too
- area effects: you came back to old way, with a lot of impression and very hard for not experienced MD and potential arguing with players and dm
- healing: it will be very hard to balance the encouters. all heal depend on healing spell if DM kill the healer, the group is wipe

- fighter: it's a joke? come back to old way, the boring way?
- priest: it's a joke? come back to memorisation way? If u dont want at will/ encounter / daily stuff, take THE GOOD THINGS IN DND2.5, the mana system...
- mage: it seem to be the only one wich is playable and fun, and finally it's the only wich function as dnd4 characteur: at will and daily powers finally
-rogue: it's a joke? no TP? no special deplacement?

My impression:
You are completely failed: You want to convince DND3.5 gamers to play to a new system... You can do what you want, they DON'T WANT TO CHANGE. You just will loose your DND4 players. They are people who are agree to change or fresh players.

You want to know my dream? Dnd5 based on DND4 and some good ideas from DND2.5 as avantages or disavantages..

In conclusion:A friend want to create a rpg federation... he ask to people the word they linked to pen and paper rpg..
first are Friendship and evasion...
Noone said "simulationism".

Sign In to post comments