Legends and Lore: Playtest Update, Part 2

269 posts / 0 new
Last post
Legends and Lore: Playtest Update, Part 2
Mike Mearls

Back on June 25th, I shared a list of the key issues that arose from the first round of testing. Let’s see where we are with each of them for the upcoming packet.

Fighter Options
Surprise
Critical Hits
Resting and Healing
Skills




Talk about this article here.
General responses from this thread [upto post 77]:


Combat Superiority

Fighter Changes
• Forumers are looking forward to what Combat Superiority looks.
• Good summary of what the feedback about the Fighter is, and how this feedback inspires the changes.

Tactical and Narrative
• Forumers seem patient and understanding with “tactical and narrative rules modules” being “the back-burner”.
• But these modular options remain vital for some players.

Surprise
• Forumers give mixed responses to changes.
• Determining who is surprised remains unclear.
 
Free Round versus Initiative Modifier
• Most forumers prefer an initiative modifier, and dislike an extra free round. These forumers specifically dont want the surprisers going twice in a row.
• Some forumers like the −20 penalty to initiative checks of those who are surprised.
• Suggestion: Make this penalty −10 to initiative checks.
• Suggestion: Use a disadvantage to initiative checks of those who are surprised, rather than a penalty.
• Suggestion: Use Perception check (defacto Perception is saving throw versus invisibility, illusion, and so on) to determine surprise, whether characters are unaware (surprised) or aware (unsurprised).
• Suggestion: Those who fail the Perception save roll initiative at a disadvantage or some penalty.

Ambush
• Suggestion: Preparing an ambush grants an advantage or bonus to initiative.

Critical Hits
• Most forumers like the way crits work now, simply dealing max damage.
• It seems to depend on playstyle regarding dice: those who prefer set simple values versus those who prefer random dice values.
• At least one forumer dislikes how a crit removes the ability to roll dice.
 
Resting and Healing
 
Options for Long Rest
• Most (all?) forumers like having various options concerning the long rest.
• “Reset” versus “gritty” - both are good options.
• Suggestion: Also add options for frequency of long rests: “once per day” (as a 7-hour sleep) versus several times per day (as a 1-hour rest).

Hit Dice
• Most forumers like having enough healing to avoid “healbot” Clerics.
• Most forumers like the hit-dice healing mechanic.
• Some want a nonrandom average as an option instead of rolling hit dice. 
• Some forumers express concerns about “single digit” hit points making heroes too fragile, and unable to persist for more than one encounter.

Skills

Set List of Skills 
• Most forumers express concern about “a set list of skills” for “when creating backgrounds”, and give mixed responses.
• Some forumers like freeform skills, the way they already are in Playtest 1.
• Other forumers like the structural design that “set” skills represent. 
• A set list of broad skills seems good for organization.
• But many forumers like the absence of a set skill list.
• A set list of skills clutters the character sheets.
• There still needs to be narrow skills that give bonuses to specific kinds of skill checks, without broad bonuses.
• Skill bonuses need to remain disconnected from specific abilities.
• For many, the skill system is one of the best features that 5e has. Dont mess it up. 
• Suggestion: Make “set” skill list just examples of skills. Those who like freeform continue to add new skills, those who like predefined dont.
• Suggestion: Make the “set” skill list broad categories of skill checks, but let narrow categories for a specific skill check remain unlimited.
  
Rogue Trained Skills
• Forumers give mixed responses to +3 Rogue skill bonus.
• Some forumers like seeing the Rogue as a “skill monkey”.
• Other forumers dislike a single class being in control of an entire pillar of the game.
• Do skillful Wizards need to multiclass as a Rogue? It seems wrong.
• The blanket Rogue skill bonus as an unhelpful complication to fix the lack of Perception.
• Suggestion: The mental ability of Wisdom for “quick thinking” and “cunning” is important for the Rogue, and the Rogue class should embrace Wisdom as a secondary ability.
1) Tactical and narritive cmbat is being held back until Combat Superiority is tested. Okay.

2) Surprise rounds instead of suprise penalties. Cool.

3) Critical Hits are the same. Okay, I never ad a problem with them. Personally I hated the dice multiplier version as it often gave me natural 1s and 2s.

4) HPs are lowered across te board. Maybe it with use 3e's HD+Con mod rather than 4e's HD+Con score.
Channel Divinty grants heals. Cool.
HD stay. Cool.
Resting has a dial to match how the group wants it. Ah DUUUUUUUUUH! I'm surprised it took so long to say and I apologize in advance if it was said earlier.

5) Sounds like we are getting te 3E skill list with Hide and Move Silently combined into Stealth, Spot, Search, and Listen combined into Perceprion. and all the Lore skills named. Cool and expected.

The rogue thing I can't understand until I get some coffee. Can someone explain?

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!



The rogue thing I can't understand until I get some coffee. Can someone explain?



It can mean 2 things;

-the rogue can choose to use the +3 given by the skill or the flat ability modifier, whichever is higher

or

-the rogue can choose the +3+ability modifier or a flat +3, whichever is higher

If the first is true this will have repercussions on how skills work for all classes and that skill checks become harder for those that could add them before. If so, it will flatten the math moer and I do think it might work.

personally I think they meant to say the second option.
I REALLY dislike the rogue change. I've felt their other changes have been a step forward, but the rogue change of +3 or ability mod is a bad call. I get what WotC is trying to do, but this isn't a good solution. Rogues will have effectively a minimum of 16 for every ability in which that have a trained skill in. Lots of room for munchkin'ing of abilities with that.

Finding traps should be the better of int or wis, and other skills could use the better of multiple abilties for their associated actions.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.


The rogue thing I can't understand until I get some coffee. Can someone explain?



It can mean 2 things;

-the rogue can choose to use the +3 given by the skill or the flat ability modifier, whichever is higher

or

-the rogue can choose the +3+ability modifier or a flat +3, whichever is higher

If the first is true this will have repercussions on how skills work for all classes and that skill checks become harder for those that could add them before. If so, it will flatten the math moer and I do think it might work.

personally I think they meant to say the second option.



I'm curious if this will be a replacement for their 'No less than 10' mechanic, ot if it is in addition to it.  If it is in addition to, the minimum a rogue could roll on their skill check would be 16, which is pretty impressive (perhaps too much so).

Regarding critical hits, I would like to see the player get a choice of the critical hit effect, with max damage being the default option, and maybe have one or two more options depending on class, or theme, or maybe one for each.  For example, a rogue could have an option to either maximize damage, or to have their next attack against the target have advantage, or a Guardian could make the target have disadvantage on their next attack roll.
The Rogue change makes no sense, unless they've changed skill checks into d20+3 (skill training), which would make skill training useless for any character who already had a 16+ ability score, and based on the wording of this article a penalty if you have an 18+.  I think they were talking about doing this a while ago.  It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.  The same task could be either an ability check (if you're not trained), or a skill check that works differently (you don't add mod) if you are.

If they haven't changed the way that skills work, then it's still a bad idea.  It implies that Rogues get to roll 1d20+3 OR ability mod, whereas everyone else is rolling 1d20+3+ability mod.

Another way of reading it is that if the Rogue has a low mod, they would roll 1d20+3+3 (2X skill bonus).  Which is just clunky.  And I feel like this is probably what they're trying to say. 

Is this just the designers trying to justify their stupid 8 Wis pre-gen?  Just accept the fact that Rogues can't dump Wis, or give certain schemes a class feature that lets them use Int.  Also, not all Rogues need to be trap-monkeys.  If you want one that is, choose a build that uses Wis or can sub Int for it. 

Looks like I'll be using the skill system from 13th Age for my games if this ends up in the final game.
I'd like to see some rules that allowed a player to swap the extra damage or (max damage) in lieu of placing conditions on the target.
I REALLY dislike the rogue change. I've felt their other changes have been a step forward, but the rogue change of +3 or ability mod is a bad call. I get what WotC is trying to do, but this isn't a good solution. Rogues will have effectively a minimum of 16 for every ability in which that have a trained skill in. Lots of room for munchkin'ing of abilities with that.

Finding traps should be the better of int or wis, and other skills could use the better of multiple abilties for their associated actions.

i agree. it is a dumb solution to the rogue perception issue.
1. New Fighter mechanic to be tested. Cool. I hope they also added some sort of out-of-combat option for Fighters, as that was the only class that had none available.

2. The Surprise Round sounds a lot less clunky than the -20 to initiative.

3. I'm pretty much indifferent to Crits, so, okay. (Although I like Khopesh's idea above)

4. Lower HP, lower damage. Sounds good in general. I wonder how they are lowering damage output for characters, though? Maybe getting rid of some of the dice increases for weapons?  

5. Skill list. Okay. I hope there is no Perception skill, though. For example, just use Wis or Int + Sneak to spot someone hiding. I think people are much better at spotting the stuff they have some training in, because those are the details their brains automatically note and process.

6. Like others on here, I had to read that several times to get it (maybe). I think it means that if the Rogue has an attribute bonus of less than +3 on a skill check, she gets to use a +3 in place of her attribute bonus. It does seem clunky to me, but I'll give it a playtest. 



6. Like others on here, I had to read that several times to get it (maybe). I think it means that if the Rogue has an attribute bonus of less than +3 on a skill check, she gets to use a +3 in place of her attribute bonus. It does seem clunky to me, but I'll give it a playtest. 




If that is so and they keep Skill Mastery then thief can't fail any skill DC of 16 or lower if he is trained in a skill. Ever. I don't mind rogues competent but they might as well rename class "Skill Monkey" now.


The rogue thing I can't understand until I get some coffee. Can someone explain?



It can mean 2 things;

-the rogue can choose to use the +3 given by the skill or the flat ability modifier, whichever is higher

or

-the rogue can choose the +3+ability modifier or a flat +3, whichever is higher

If the first is true this will have repercussions on how skills work for all classes and that skill checks become harder for those that could add them before. If so, it will flatten the math moer and I do think it might work.

personally I think they meant to say the second option.



In Example, the Playtest Rogue:
Wis 8 (-1) + Trained Find/Remove Traps (+3)  = +2 bonus on rolls with a minimum roll of 10 guaranteed (Skill Mastery).

With Updated Ruling (Ability Modifier or +3, whichever is better):
Wis 8 (-1 ) OR +3 plus Trained Find/Remove Traps (+3) = +6 bonus with min roll of 10 guaranteed


That is about the same as if you made the Rogue's WIS 16, putting it at the top of the Abilities chosen for that character.  Which is fine if you're creating a WIS based character.  I don't like the idea that a Minmaxer can still make WIS his dump stat and benefit as if he actually had a very good score there.  

I'd much prefer DnDNext progressed away from any Class having a Dump Stat.  A good character should have one very good score, a good score and some above average scores.  Anyone who wanted to play a MinMaxed character should feel the loss of any ability they neglect, just as a Character would.  This new ruling actually Rewards the MinMaxer for breaking the game.  No thanks, you can keep this one, the original playtest ruling on this was just fine.


6. Like others on here, I had to read that several times to get it (maybe). I think it means that if the Rogue has an attribute bonus of less than +3 on a skill check, she gets to use a +3 in place of her attribute bonus. It does seem clunky to me, but I'll give it a playtest. 




If that is so and they keep Skill Mastery then thief can't fail any skill DC of 16 or lower if he is trained in a skill. Ever. I don't mind rogues competent but they might as well rename class "Skill Monkey" now.



That's why I think it is +3+ability modifier or +3, whichever is higher. A rogue with wisdom 14 will check for traps at +5 (3+2=5) and a rogue with Wisdom 6 will check for traps at +3 (not 3-2=1).


6. Like others on here, I had to read that several times to get it (maybe). I think it means that if the Rogue has an attribute bonus of less than +3 on a skill check, she gets to use a +3 in place of her attribute bonus. It does seem clunky to me, but I'll give it a playtest. 




If that is so and they keep Skill Mastery then thief can't fail any skill DC of 16 or lower if he is trained in a skill. Ever. I don't mind rogues competent but they might as well rename class "Skill Monkey" now.



Well, it may-- or may not-- apply only to Rogue skills. The phrase "when using a skill in which the rogue is trained" might include class skills, but not any from other sources like background. I think that part was not written clearly. I think a Rogue should be good at their class skills, so I'm okay with it if it only applies to Rogue class skills. I'm concerned that it might be clunky, but I'll give it a playtest to see.



6. Like others on here, I had to read that several times to get it (maybe). I think it means that if the Rogue has an attribute bonus of less than +3 on a skill check, she gets to use a +3 in place of her attribute bonus. It does seem clunky to me, but I'll give it a playtest. 




If that is so and they keep Skill Mastery then thief can't fail any skill DC of 16 or lower if he is trained in a skill. Ever. I don't mind rogues competent but they might as well rename class "Skill Monkey" now.



Well, it may-- or may not-- apply only to Rogue skills. The phrase "when using a skill in which the rogue is trained" might include class skills, but not any from other sources like background. I think that part was not written clearly. I think a Rogue should be good at their class skills, so I'm okay with it if it only applies to Rogue class skills. I'm concerned that it might be clunky, but I'll give it a playtest to see.




To be clear, I don't mind the new ruling that much. It's more about me having several issues with Skill Mastery, and this new rule amplifies them.
That's why I think it is +3+ability modifier or +3, whichever is higher. A rogue with wisdom 14 will check for traps at +5 (3+2=5) and a rogue with Wisdom 6 will check for traps at +3 (not 3-2=1).

That interpretation is a slight better, but still allows rogues to dump abilities without penalty. WotC would be further ahead just assigning two abilities for each skill/action, and let the character use the better of the two.

To be clear, I don't mind the new ruling that much. It's more about me having several issues with Skill Mastery, and this new rule amplifies them.

I agree Skill Mastery needs some revision. IMO, Skill Mastery is better as a specialty, and not tied directly to rogues.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
"...we’ve given the rogue the ability to use the higher of either a +3 bonus or an ability score modifier when using a skill in which the rogue is trained"

It's an Either/Or situation: Either use the Abilities modifier (anything less than a 16) or +3 to add on a roll plus your skill modifier.  That is a serious bonus when combined with Skill Mastery (read way too much IMO).

That it applies to only the Rogue, he implies by saying "...given the Rogue...", and also only to Trained skills further in the statement by saying "...when using a skill in which the rogue is trained."
Don't forget dumping in Next does have an effect. In this case it doesn't affect skills that much, but it will affect saves, and all other wisdom based skills the rogue is not trained in.

There is no mention of it but I do wonder if the minimum bonus thing is in addition too or in lieu of skill mastery.
Don't forget dumping in Next does have an effect. In this case it doesn't affect skills that much, but it will affect saves, and all other wisdom based skills the rogue is not trained in.

There is no mention of it but I do wonder if the minimum bonus thing is in addition too or in lieu of skill mastery.



I'll be honest, this would make me happy. However this would make rogue players kinda shafted in this iteration of playtest, if all they got was a SM nerf.

Don't forget dumping in Next does have an effect. In this case it doesn't affect skills that much, but it will affect saves, and all other wisdom based skills the rogue is not trained in.

There is no mention of it but I do wonder if the minimum bonus thing is in addition too or in lieu of skill mastery.



I agree.  Sinking stats because your skills wont get touched doesn't help you in the saving throw department.  I'm also interested to see if they ditch skill mastery.

Rogues are supposed to be the skill guys, so I'm okay with this change.  Also, they may want to consider adding it on a smaller scale to other classes.  A fighter gets his charisma bonus or +4 to intimidate checks, the cleric gets his int bonus or + 4 to religion checks.  It helps eliminate the need for those fluff feats that basically did the same thing and might finally end the "religion should be based on wisdom" threads.

You could do something similar for Paladins.  A paladin gets the better of his attribute bonus or +3 on all saving throws.
Don't forget dumping in Next does have an effect. In this case it doesn't affect skills that much, but it will affect saves, and all other wisdom based skills the rogue is not trained in.

There is no mention of it but I do wonder if the minimum bonus thing is in addition too or in lieu of skill mastery.



I'll be honest, this would make me happy. However this would make rogue players kinda shafted in this iteration of playtest, if all they got was a SM nerf.




I think of it like braketing. If the Minimum 10 was too much, and the +3 minimum attribute bonus is too little they may come up with a middle ground. The end result might be that rogues get a blanket +5 bonus to trained skills and their ability scores have nothing to do with it at all, and skill mastery goes to the wayside. It's all speculation until the next packet comes out.

They may be happy with the rogues combat prowess at this stage. Remember they know more about levels 3+ than we do. It also seems they want to get the special abilities of the classes down; the part that makes the class unique. So they gave fighters a mechanic, adjusted the rogue mechanic, and gave clerics more healing.
Thanks Haldrik for starting this discussion using the proper format. I've linked this Thread as the Official Discussion.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I watched some comments about the hit dice vs healing surges in the comments below the article. I wrote a potential module that could respond to the mechanic with a different perspective. I really want some comments about the concept where it is. link.

I am concerned for the design of healing and hit points. If a PC gains only a single hit die at level 1 and only a single hit die at each level, doesn't this seem that PCs can only handle an adventuring period with a number of encounters less than or equal to the number of hit die?

Even with magical healing, doesn't this reduce the number of combat rounds down to a number that would result in less damage to PCs than their hit points + hit dice can absorb? 

While I respect that 4e's healing surge mechanics are not returning, this offered a minimum level of self-healing to absorb the adventure period between extended rests. Wouldn't it be better to establish a specific minimum self-healing to cushion the hit dice? This could ensure a lengthened adventuring period.

In contrast, with reduced overall hit points + healing the PCs are back to a state of easy-to-kill which was not so true in 4e. That reduced survivability is a gift to those who want it. It isn't quite what I want from D&D, but I can certainly imagine some methods of overcoming it through house rules. I'm certain there will be modules to support that heightened survivability desired.
Fighter Options - Well, this is uncontroversial, but we're still not getting much on what they're doing, so no real news here...

Surprise - I'm utterly confused by this. The original system was dirt simple and it was entirely clear what you did, you just decreased the initiative of anyone that didn't have surprise by 20, duh! I mean it might be more aesthetically pleasing to have the surprising party ADD 20 to its initiative, but the result is the same. The problem with the whole surprise round thing is amply illustrated by all the threads about surprise in various situations in the 4e forums. I'd rather they stuck to what they did at first, it is simpler and it worked well, and the cool thing was even if you were surprised if you had good reactions you COULD still manage to beat some of the enemy (and it would be easy to see something like a 'quick on your feet' feat/trait that would give a nice +10 bonus or something so you could often react quickly enough to get out of things, this is more complex with a 'surprise round' system).

Critical Hits - Keep it this way Mike. I am not that interested in a combat system that amounts to "I got lucky".

Resting & Healing - Yay! We get to go back to AD&D glass characters that put 20 minions in front of them and go around poking everything with 10' poles until they get unlucky, then the survivors run away. Actually I don't care that much about what you get from a long rest. Characters should be robust enough to be able to take risks without almost certain death every time. Single digit hit points are also a PITA because there's simply not enough granularity to allow small but non-trivial increments of damage.

Skills - Yay! We have no devolved right down to the 3e long fixed skill list. What an advance! Word of advice, if this is the best you can do can you just admit defeat and cut the whole skill system entirely? I'll write one myself, thx.

That is not dead which may eternal lie
Only two things really stood out to me:

1. That the Fighter needing to have real options was the most overwhelming piece of feedback they got. Looks like the OSR was wrong about Fighters.

2. On the issue of healing back to full during an extended rest, they aren't making a grittier and slower rate of healing "official", but merely making it one of several options at a later date. Player feedback on the issue is mixed, with as many people supporting fast healing.
...whatever
Surprise - I'm utterly confused by this. The original system was dirt simple and it was entirely clear what you did, you just decreased the initiative of anyone that didn't have surprise by 20, duh! I mean it might be more aesthetically pleasing to have the surprising party ADD 20 to its initiative, but the result is the same. The problem with the whole surprise round thing is amply illustrated by all the threads about surprise in various situations in the 4e forums. I'd rather they stuck to what they did at first, it is simpler and it worked well, and the cool thing was even if you were surprised if you had good reactions you COULD still manage to beat some of the enemy (and it would be easy to see something like a 'quick on your feet' feat/trait that would give a nice +10 bonus or something so you could often react quickly enough to get out of things, this is more complex with a 'surprise round' system).


Except this still doesn't address the issue that they had trouble with, which was "how do you determine who is surprised and who isn't"
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Lots of cool things coming with the next Packet!


Fighter Options grown a lot with Combat Superiority.   


Surprise Rules more like older iterations is too huge benefit IMO. If it could limit actions to ambushers similar to 4th editions it would be the best of both world.


Critical Hits is rather bland but at least we know they're aware and may deal with it later.


Resting and Healing addressed indirectly is nice, especially reducing HP to and damage to reduce their impact and to give optional ways  of using the Long Rest mechanic is really interesting. 


Skills are on the good path. The Rogue getting minimum +3 in just any Skill that they're trained in is something i like better than the current Skill Mastery benefit of take 10.



EDITED For clarity

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Only two things really stood out to me:

1. That the Fighter needing to have real options was the most overwhelming piece of feedback they got. Looks like the OSR was wrong about Fighters.

2. On the issue of healing back to full during an extended rest, they aren't making a grittier and slower rate of healing "official", but merely making it one of several options at a later date. Player feedback on the issue is mixed, with as many people supporting fast healing.
...whatever
Skills are on the good path. The Rogue getting minimum +3 in just any Skill that they're trained in is something i like better than the current Skill Mastery benefit of take 10.     



Added an important bit.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I watched some comments about the hit dice vs healing surges in the comments below the article. I wrote a potential module that could respond to the mechanic with a different perspective. I really want some comments about the concept where it is. link.

I am concerned for the design of healing and hit points. If a PC gains only a single hit die at level 1 and only a single hit die at each level, doesn't this seem that PCs can only handle an adventuring period with a number of encounters less than or equal to the number of hit die?

Even with magical healing, doesn't this reduce the number of combat rounds down to a number that would result in less damage to PCs than their hit points + hit dice can absorb? 

While I respect that 4e's healing surge mechanics are not returning, this offered a minimum level of self-healing to absorb the adventure period between extended rests. Wouldn't it be better to establish a specific minimum self-healing to cushion the hit dice? This could ensure a lengthened adventuring period.

In contrast, with reduced overall hit points + healing the PCs are back to a state of easy-to-kill which was not so true in 4e. That reduced survivability is a gift to those who want it. It isn't quite what I want from D&D, but I can certainly imagine some methods of overcoming it through house rules. I'm certain there will be modules to support that heightened survivability desired.

I just don't understand why there would be a RANDOM number. Why are the PC's "interest in the scene" random? Anyway, it is OT here.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Surprise - I'm utterly confused by this. The original system was dirt simple and it was entirely clear what you did, you just decreased the initiative of anyone that didn't have surprise by 20, duh! I mean it might be more aesthetically pleasing to have the surprising party ADD 20 to its initiative, but the result is the same. The problem with the whole surprise round thing is amply illustrated by all the threads about surprise in various situations in the 4e forums. I'd rather they stuck to what they did at first, it is simpler and it worked well, and the cool thing was even if you were surprised if you had good reactions you COULD still manage to beat some of the enemy (and it would be easy to see something like a 'quick on your feet' feat/trait that would give a nice +10 bonus or something so you could often react quickly enough to get out of things, this is more complex with a 'surprise round' system).


Except this still doesn't address the issue that they had trouble with, which was "how do you determine who is surprised and who isn't"

And how does having a surprise round resolve that??? It doesn't! CLEARLY it doesn't because I spent endless hours giving people advice on this subject in the 4e forums, as did many other people. Thus Mike has fired and clearly missed the mark, but he's managed to make things just a bit more complicated in the process.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Skills are on the good path. The Rogue getting minimum +3 in just any Skill that they're trained in is something i like better than the current Skill Mastery benefit of take 10.     



Added an important bit.



I edited to clarify thanks.

Do you think this will replace Skill Mastery ''Take 10''  or it will be in addition to it ?

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I doubt it, actually.  My money's on additional.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Only two things really stood out to me:

1. That the Fighter needing to have real options was the most overwhelming piece of feedback they got. Looks like the OSR was wrong about Fighters.

2. On the issue of healing back to full during an extended rest, they aren't making a grittier and slower rate of healing "official", but merely making it one of several options at a later date. Player feedback on the issue is mixed, with as many people supporting fast healing.

I'd support fast and slow healing, they are just useful for different types of game. Luckily that's one of those things that can be changed pretty trivially without impacting much of the other rules. What I don't support is A) making all the healing dependent on the cleric and B) having small numbers of hit points at low level. Oddly B will actually make the goals of bounded accuracy tougher to achieve since it means the lower level monsters are simply too weak to matter pretty quickly (consider the effects of AoEs on minions in 4e for instance).
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Things being reduced to fireball bait as you level way beyond them is the point of bounded accuracy...

They can still fight - they can hit, they're not auto-hit, and while they do small damage it can add up.  And when a dragon breathes on them, they all die.  Working as intended.

Also, they specifically said they like the HD mechanic as a way to implement clericless healing.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Skills are on the good path. The Rogue getting minimum +3 in just any Skill that they're trained in is something i like better than the current Skill Mastery benefit of take 10.     



Added an important bit.



I edited to clarify thanks.

Do you think this will replace Skill Mastery ''Take 10''  or it will be in addition to it ?

Why not just give thieves an automatic permanent Advantage for doing certain 'thiefly' things. This could could be extended to other classes too for doing a few 'core shtick' type things. Bards can have it for doing bardy things, wizards for using Arcana, fighters for Athletics, etc. Some classes might get a choice, or maybe these can be determined as part of theme etc. I've never really bought the whole "skill monkey" thing or why it should correlate with being a criminal...
That is not dead which may eternal lie
wel on crits i would hope for the folowing:

keep basic crits as they are now, but with the bounded accuracy magic weapons will have less of a to hit bonus maybe this can be ofset by making magic weapons more intresting based on their crit effects.
 being a criminal...



You premise is incorrect.  Not all rogues are criminals.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Their damage can be lowered to the point where they are insignificant outside of ridiculous numbers.

The healing in the first playtest made me uncomfortable. PCs felt like they were made of glass compared to 4E and even 3E past level 5. HP loss(and gain) was very random, and single PCs regularly got smashed to the point of not being able to continue with the adventure. While that sort of thing is appropriate for an old school sandbox, it doesn't jive well with a story-centric railroad or cinematic action style of play.
...whatever
Things being reduced to fireball bait as you level way beyond them is the point of bounded accuracy...

They can still fight - they can hit, they're not auto-hit, and while they do small damage it can add up.  And when a dragon breathes on them, they all die.  Working as intended.

Also, they specifically said they like the HD mechanic as a way to implement clericless healing.

The problem is that monsters will be 'fireball bait' basically from the start. The most common experience people have with 4e is that minions are utterly irrelevant, and the reason is clearly the ease of just clearing them off with pretty much any random AoE. If we're going to have level 1 monsters basically be minions lets just do it right and give them 1 hit point and some minion rules. At least then handling 18 giant rats or 30 kobolds is actually a viable situation.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
...unless you don't get 3d6 fireballs at level 1.

Furthermore, I don't get your argument.  Minions in 4e are tactically functionless and boring due to getting cleared by any AoE, so we should implement minion rules?

Shouldn't you be arguing for a more gradual transition, where things as you level up might still survive your weaker AoE things but still get wiped out by the stronger ones, as they should?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition