Was this Packet an Improvement?

91 posts / 0 new
Last post
Just as the thread title says.  Do you feel this packet was an improvement over the last one?

I don't feel it was.  Here are my reasons.

Races:  I actually don't have a huge problem with the races.  Except the Human.  They really need something more than just boosts to abilities.  I would rather they had a plain +2 to any stat, and free training in one skill, and perhaps a free feat.  That is a legacy from both 3E and 4E.

Classes: Well, they majorly screwed these up compared to the last playtest.  I will cover each class in its own area.

Cleric: I really hate that Turn Undead is a baseline assumed ability.  What about a cleric of the God of Death, who controls undead rather than turns them?  I would rather there were many Channel Divinity abilities to choose from, not just one that targets a specific subset of monsters.  The reduction in spells is just awful too.  And this is from someone that hates spellcaster supremecy.  I REALLY like the fact that they included the gods from the different settings in the Deity section.  Dragonlance and Greyhawk are back!  But truthfully, the Lightbringer is Paladine from Dragonlance as well, the Trickster is Branchala and Sirrion and Hiddukel, and the Warbringer is Kiri-Jolith and Sargonnas.  Just saying.

Fighter: Well, nothing special anymore.  Combat Expertise is still neat, but no longer unique.  We are back to the Fighter having nothing to themselves, just more of what other classes have.  If Fighting Styles came with an additional skill attached to them, that would be cool in my book.

Rogue: I like that Rogues use manuevers now, but the Rogue needs to be using the same rate of Maneuver acquisition as the Fighter.  At least they got rid of Thieve's Cant.

Wizard: Very underwhelmed with Traditions.  So they dictate ALL of the At-Will spells you can use?  And there is no way to acquire more (beyond being a High Elf?).  Seriously, the Wizard went from having upwards of seven At-Will spells of THEIR choosing to having three or four that are dictated by their Tradition (not-choosable AT ALL) and having an Encounter-ish spell (again, totally not up to the caster what their signature spell is), and their spell slots were cut in half.  So they lost three At-Wills, the choice of the remaining three, and half of their spell slots, and gained... a s***ty encounter power that never increases in power and is totally not up to them.  Why not turn Zero-level spells back to At-Will and have the Tradition grant the abilities beyond that (same goes for Domains). Or perhaps the Specialty would grant a BONUS At-Will that is unique to just it. Perhaps the Battle Magic Wizard would gain an Elemental Dart. The signature spell should be any spell from a given level from that particular school (Battle Magic is Evocation, Illusion is... Illusion). The Academic could grant an additional At-Will of your choice, and a Signature spell of 1st level of your choice (the lack of the added goodies like the ability to ignore allies in spells is still a big enough draw to even that out).  Also, the Signature Spell should be able to change once you go up in level.  It starts off as a First, but say when you gain 3rd level spells, it becomes a 2nd-Level spell.  And so on and so forth.  Color me impressed... NOT.  Absolutely nothing positive came out of this playtest for the Wizard.

Skills and Backgrounds: The change from three to four skills is welcome.  I still don't care for the DM deciding what ability score the skill uses, I would rather it was as clear as possible.  Also don't like that skills are so narrow.  I would rather they were more broad so they were more like an ability check.  I would rather they cut the list down to the 4E skill list and filled in the blank areas.  Why do we need Listen, Spot, and Search when Perception is much better?  Backgrounds haven't changed all that much.

Feats and Specialties: This section is a complete and utter downgrade from the last playtest.  Beyond the uninspired names, they nerfed the hell out of the specialties.  Sure, they killed some of the more powerful ones, but some of the other casualties are disheartening.  Am I the only one that LOVED the idea that Magic-User and Acolyte basically functioned as mini-Multiclass delivery systems?  The bonus at-wills were really cool, having them be once per day is just boring.  And what happened to half of the feats?  Were they that unsatisfied with them that they just killed them?  Overall, the power reduction in the feats section is just unwarranted.  The feats weren't that overpowered in the first place (some were).  What they should have done is, if a feat was underpowered compared to the rest, RAISE IT UP don't drag the rest down.

Equipment: Armor is still wrong.  Who in their right mind would wear Ring Mail?  For a cost one point of armor, you can buy Studded Leather, save 5 gp, and not have a -5 to movement and disadvantage on stealth.  And if you happen not to have a crap Dex, it gets even worse.  I still thing Finesse Weapons should be a separate thing than weapon type.  There should be Finesse Basic, Martial, and Heavy Weapons (not sure how, but someone will think of something).

Maneuvers: I like that they put fighter and rogue spells in one place.  I still think the Rogue's progression is too gimp.  Also, Glancing Blow is still annoyingly difficult to gain the benefit from.

Spells: What the hell happened to half of the spells?  What happened to Arc Lightning(A spell my Battle Magic Wizard should be able to have as a Signature Spell, BTW)?  Very disappointing.  I like that they rearranged some of the spells, but because of how they gimped At-Wills and the Magic User and Acolyte themes, people probably won't use them much.  I guess they had to cave to the Grogs that MUST have Vancian magic behave the way it did thirty years ago.

Monsters: Well, they didn't touch these, even though they added creatures, which seems like a waste of time.  Why include the dragons if you are just going to turn around and overhual it in a week?

Anyway, that is all that I can think of right now.  What is everyone else's thoughts?

BTW, I fused the player related files together and made a 136 page PHB lite.  I guess a small-ass PHB is out of the question.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
A: No.
(The End)
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
A: No.
(The End)


B: Hell no.
Whatever guys, I feel every class took a step in the right direction. You can definately feel they are getting more comfortable with the mechanics and their ability to experiment with them.

One thing, you talk about legacy with humans, but then insult it with turn undead? Seems flip floppy.
My two copper.
No, no, and a thousand times no. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Whatever guys, I feel every class took a step in the right direction. You can definately feel they are getting more comfortable with the mechanics and their ability to experiment with them. .

If the playtests are stages of maturing, PT3 is the part where our faces turn into an acne warzone, and we do everything possible to not get out from behind a desk right now.

Whatever guys, I feel every class took a step in the right direction. You can definately feel they are getting more comfortable with the mechanics and their ability to experiment with them.

One thing, you talk about legacy with humans, but then insult it with turn undead? Seems flip floppy.



The legacy of turn undead is that it should be a choice for the cleric, not the default and ONLY option.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
I think this could be a yes or no answer depending how you look at it.People are complaining about hte fighter, but after first level he seems on track too me. I think they are going in the wrong direction with cleics and wizards, but everyone wants something different for those classes and theyre trying to listen everybody but pleasing nobody. Im ok with the rogue for now( maybe change my opion after some actual playtesting).

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Whatever guys, I feel every class took a step in the right direction. You can definately feel they are getting more comfortable with the mechanics and their ability to experiment with them. .

If the playtests are stages of maturing, PT3 is the part where our faces turn into an acne warzone, and we do everything possible to not get out from behind a desk right now.




So.  Much.  Awesome.  In.  This.  Post.

Seriously, this playtest was so much of a step backward, not having ANY playtests would be better.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
Yes and No. A few steps forward, a few steps back.
I think everyone has those patch day rages, but guess what? They either keep raging over text, or they actually swallow their childishness, get out there, and test the mechanics. So rather than ranting and raving over how people "think" stuff is going to be awful, people should actually playtest it a couple of times before making their decision.

Think about it, this stuff gets internally playtested several times before it hits our screens. People who make and playtest DnD for a living approved this handout. We should at least give it the courtesy to play it before trashing it.

But again, as I mentioned above, the next 24-72 hours are going to be nothing but patch day raging I'll just take a little break from the forums and come back when people actually know what they are talking about.
My two copper.
Races: I agree with what you said. A human needs something to help him out and make him feel a little more special.

A cleric shouldn't have turn undead as a default ability. Healing should be a defualt ability and nothing else. As for CS dice and the fighter, I think this is heading in the right direction. I know a lot of people think the fighter got killed, but I think CS dice needs to be lower becauuse of deadly strike and parry.


The rogue's skill mastery still seems like it is going to result in the rogue almost always succeeding in a skill. This doesn't seem to be am improvement over the previous version. Rogues gaining CS dice seems like WotC was just being lazy about coming up with a neat idea for a rogue. Really for me personally a rogue is all about theiving and sneak attacking. Just having extra skills would suffice without skill mastery. The theives tools thign seems a bit silly for only theives to be able to use them.


Armor is wrong and has been for a long time. The cost difference is to maintain realism. I.e. metal armor should cost a lot more than leather armor. This I am fine with. What I'm not fine with is there is no variety in the armor. A character who is restricted to wearing leather armor can no longer afford to have a low dex score. There needs to be more armor options than three. The prices on them seem rediculous as well. Bring back 3rd edition armor and costs and I would be happy.


Arc Lightening has always felt warlock to me rather than wizard.   Also keep in mind that magic is going to the system level, so at some point there will be some allegedly non-vancian options. I'm not sure if that is needed, I think things were heading in the right direction before.

 Small PHB is out of the question. Pictures are awesome and I would love a picture of every item and every monster. Pictures of items being in a book just looks great, and not to mention really helps when you have no clue what an item looks like.


Monsters: These aren't actually scary monsters, these are the ones you find in your atic and keep as a pet.   

I don't know about the whole thing overall yet. I need more time to digest. But, I really don't like what I have seen in regards to the rogue. This is the first time I have read through a playtest and felt unhappy afterwards. 

Also, generally gods of death tend to hate undead as much as everyone else due to the fact that it represents a corruption of the natural order of death :P

Undead tend have their own god, Vecna, or demigods.
My two copper.
You know, you might be right.  I might need to playtest it a bit in order to know whether I like having more - or less - options.  Or whether I like flavorful (optional) character themes more than "Better at X" feat-trees.




Complaints about specific mechanics, numbers, whatever, I can undertand wanting people to playtest.  But I'm not seeing a lot of those outside of the Sneak Attack "nerf".
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Armor does need to be fixed, I dont think Ive seen any threads on how awsome armor is in its current form(the names for one thing are terrible and make me steam every time i see them). Because you know you cant buy magical gear but displacer beast hide is everywhere.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Yes and No. A few steps forward, a few steps back.


This.

I'm not thrilled with this packet like I was with the last but it's not all bad news. Some of the specialties, despite lack of everything I loved flavor-wise, actually look more useful. Ambush and Endurance specialties come to mind. I actually think Backgrounds are WAY better this time around and all the traits are better as well. Persuade is MUCH better than Diplomacy fluff wise. Some fun new maneuvers. 

You all know what went wrong so I don't need to go over that.

I figure we'll give these all a couple of play-throughs and feedback and the next packet will be a beefing up (plus possibly some higher levels and multiclassing) then we can start seeing the races re-done and more classes. 
I'm with Bardic_Dave.

Races: I also wish they'd do something different with humans, and I agree that the +2 to one stat, extra skill, extra feat legacy is an acceptable tradition to carry on.

Classes:

Cleric- I'm loving the cleric, I'm loving the new freedom they have with their at-will spells, and I'm loving the emphasis on battle readiness with Battlefield Concentration. I agree that there is more design space for Turn Undead variants, but the functioning of Turn Undead pleases me thus far.

Wizard- I'd prefer it if Traditions were dropped in favor of School Specialization. The Traditions are odd, and they seem forced. I get what they're trying to achieve, and I consider the implementation to be solid(ish), but I'd prefer it if we just went back to School Specialization and worked out from there. It's D&D that way, and the whole premise of this edition is defining 'D&D'.

Fighter- I like it.

Rogue- I like it. I'm thinking that they should do for Sneak Attack what they did for Turn Undead and treat it as its own standalone feature, but I'm otherwise optimistic about seeing the Rogue in action.

Skills and Backgrounds: I liked Skills and Backgrounds in the last packet. Use Rope? Meh...

Feats and Specialties: This is where I was most disappointed. I agree with the sentiment of feeling robbed by the loss of such gems as Acolyte and Magic User. They should definitely go right back to where they were in the second packet. This new stuff is... weird.

Equipment: Lots still to address here.

Maneuvers: Love it, love it, love it. Shared 'spell' list for martial types? Yes, please!

Spells: Some clarifications, some oddities; have to see it in play.

Monsters: Haven't looked at them. 

Danny

I think everyone has those patch day rages, but guess what? They either keep raging over text, or they actually swallow their childishness, get out there, and test the mechanics. So rather than ranting and raving over how people "think" stuff is going to be awful, people should actually playtest it a couple of times before making their decision.

Think about it, this stuff gets internally playtested several times before it hits our screens. People who make and playtest DnD for a living approved this handout. We should at least give it the courtesy to play it before trashing it.

But again, as I mentioned above, the next 24-72 hours are going to be nothing but patch day raging I'll just take a little break from the forums and come back when people actually know what they are talking about.



You do that.

And sorry, but I don't have to playtest the Wizard Traditions to realize why I don't like it.  First off, one spell that I REALLY liked is gone from the playtest, and even if it was still there, I wouldn't be able to pick it as my signature spell, despite it being quite perfect for the Tradition.  Apparently wanting to play an Evoker or War Wizard means I MUST want to use Thunderwave all the f***ing time.

I don't NEED to playtest the Specialties to realize that the Nerfdozer(TM) rolling over them makes them less enjoyable to me.

So yeah, enjoy your time off.  I highly doubt you will come back to a pleasant place.  This playtest is garbage filled with garbage.  A lot of people are unhappy and they should be allowed to say why they are unhappy just as much as those that are happy with the changes.  And if the people that are happy with the changes feel like they are being drowned out, they either need to scream louder or realize they might be part of the minority.  But I sure as hell won't shut up just because someone is happy.  If I am unhappy, I have every right to say why.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!

Think about it, this stuff gets internally playtested several times before it hits our screens. People who make and playtest DnD for a living approved this handout. We should at least give it the courtesy to play it before trashing it.



I am not sure these guys have ever played D&D a day in their lives, let alone playtest the game. If you playtested the game would notice monsters suck the first day, not 8 months later. The obvious flaws with disadvantage and yet still throwing it into the game thinking people might actually like it! As obvious everyone hates TWF, why? Because disadvantage is an unsuable mechanic. Everyone likes Adv/Dis because Advantage makes them more likely to hit and is cool. What needs to be done is advantage kept in the game and disadvantage tossed away forever.

There are just somethings that are so obvious that should have been fixed and haven't been. 


Yes, I'm sure you know much better than a multi million dollar company with a huge R&D department Why didn't I think of this before.

Plus not everyone hates disadvantage :P I love the mechanic.
My two copper.

Think about it, this stuff gets internally playtested several times before it hits our screens. People who make and playtest DnD for a living approved this handout. We should at least give it the courtesy to play it before trashing it.



I am not sure these guys have ever played D&D a day in their lives, let alone playtest the game. If you playtested the game would notice monsters suck the first day, not 8 months later. The obvious flaws with disadvantage and yet still throwing it into the game thinking people might actually like it! As obvious everyone hates TWF, why? Because disadvantage is an unsuable mechanic. Everyone likes Adv/Dis because Advantage makes them more likely to hit and is cool. What needs to be done is advantage kept in the game and disadvantage tossed away forever.

There are just somethings that are so obvious that should have been fixed and haven't been. 


Yes, I'm sure you know much better than a multi million dollar company with a huge R&D department Why didn't I think of this before.

Plus not everyone hates disadvantage :P I love the mechanic.

I love Disadvantage too! 

Danny

This packet is just... awful. And it really does pain me to say that, as I've been really looking forward to 5e.

Among the worst changes:

* The new skill list is almost identical to 3.x's awful skill list. Spot and Listen are separate skills again, and they've even brought back Use Rope... The Lore skills are Knowledges again (why WotC? (X) Lore sounds much cooler than Knowledge (X)). And to add insult to injury, there's even a skill for driving a cart. There's even a separate skill for Warfare, even though there's a History skill that should cover that.

*Instead of being exciting, flavorful, interesting, etc., Specialties are now boring and the feats they grant often suck. For example, the feat that used to give you 2 at-will cantrips, so you could play a rogue or fighter, for example, with a couple of minor magics, has been destroyed. Now, that feat lets you cast one cantrip PER DAY. You heard me.
 
* Rogue Sneak attack is just an inferior Deadly Strike. Thus, rogues are just inferior fighters with a few extra skills. Bleh.

* The new Two-weapon fighting and critical hit rules are just terrible.

* Cantrips and Orisons are no longer at-will unless your tradition or domain specifically let you cast a specific cantrip or orison at-will. They took one of the most resoundingly popular things about 5e, at-will 0th level spells, and took it away. Only generalist wizards get all of their cantrips at-will, and they sacrifice things like an encounter spell that other traditions get to have that privelege.

* Wizards and Clerics have no more than 2 spells of each level per day. And what do they get in compensation? Surely they at least got more at-will spells to fall back on, right? Nope, those got taken away too, with a few specific exceptions chosen for you by your specialty or domain. And those wizard traditions they've been raving about? They just let you use a couple of your cantrips at-will (something all wizards could do with ALL cantrips before), and maybe a single encoutner power that's also chosen for you and a minor save DC bonus on a couple spells.

* Clerics are once again forced to have Turn Undead, whether they (or their god) care about undead or not.  

* Ability scores no longer add to spell damage. Spell damage in general has been nerfed, even though fighters are running around with combat expertise and an extra attack. Yeah, I really want to play a wizard now, shooting off pitiful 1d6 + 3 damage rays of frost all day, except for the few times a day I actually get to cast a daily spell, and even then, it's probably not going to do as much damage as the fighter does every round of every battle, all day long... Welcome everyone to the new age of linear wizards and quadratic fighters.
A: No.
(The End)


To make a better (and real) post of it, some (at-a-glance) positives for me:
I think some of the feat mechanics are far better, and far more interesting.  I like that some non-combat stuff has finally crept into the Fighter (via maneuvers).  The Cleric and Wizard classes, I actually like (though the traditions are... puzzlingly limited).  Spells seem to have been cleaned up a bit again.  Skills disassociated from ability scores is back, thankfully.  There's a bit more oomph to critical hits (though the scaling is... odd).  Expertise on the Rogue works (though the particulars of that are... kind of heavily botched).
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
@OP

To make a better (and real) post of it, some (at-a-glance) positives for me:

Or, as I joked somewhere else, there's a really great system in the three playtests, it's just not all been there at the same time.

To make a better (and real) post of it, some (at-a-glance) positives for me:

Or, as I joked somewhere else, there's a really great system in the three playtests, it's just not all been there at the same time.


A "joke", yes.

Though I think you're absolutely correct.  It would still need some work, but yeah, cobbling something together from all three would be better than each individually at this point.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)

Think about it, this stuff gets internally playtested several times before it hits our screens. People who make and playtest DnD for a living approved this handout. We should at least give it the courtesy to play it before trashing it.



I am not sure these guys have ever played D&D a day in their lives, let alone playtest the game. If you playtested the game would notice monsters suck the first day, not 8 months later. The obvious flaws with disadvantage and yet still throwing it into the game thinking people might actually like it! As obvious everyone hates TWF, why? Because disadvantage is an unsuable mechanic. Everyone likes Adv/Dis because Advantage makes them more likely to hit and is cool. What needs to be done is advantage kept in the game and disadvantage tossed away forever.

There are just somethings that are so obvious that should have been fixed and haven't been. 


Yes, I'm sure you know much better than a multi million dollar company with a huge R&D department Why didn't I think of this before.

Plus not everyone hates disadvantage :P I love the mechanic.



Uh, Hasbro has a huge R&D department. Magic the Gathering has a huge R&D department. 5E has like 7 people working on it part time while they keep up the 4E support...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I think I am doomed to liking the even playtests better.  Going into the first playtest, I was quite excited, only to be thoroughly disappointed when it came out.  Then the second playtest came, and I was happy with the progress.  So this time around, I thought they should be able to build some momentum off the second playtest, because it was such a huge improvement over the first.  Nope, they flew it straight into the ground.  Maybe the fourth playtest won't suck as much?
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
I think they could've thrown us a new race or two at this point.

That 1st Playtest Packet is looking better, and better (especially the monsters). 
This packet is just... awful. And it really does pain me to say that, as I've been really looking forward to 5e.

Among the worst changes:

* The new skill list is almost identical to 3.x's awful skill list. Spot and Listen are separate skills again, and they've even brought back Use Rope... The Lore skills are Knowledges again (why WotC? (X) Lore sounds much cooler than Knowledge (X)). And to add insult to injury, there's even a skill for driving a cart. There's even a separate skill for Warfare, even though there's a History skill that should cover that.

*Instead of being exciting, flavorful, interesting, etc., Specialties are now boring and the feats they grant often suck. For example, the feat that used to give you 2 at-will cantrips, so you could play a rogue or fighter, for example, with a couple of minor magics, has been destroyed. Now, that feat lets you cast one cantrip PER DAY. You heard me.
 
* Rogue Sneak attack is just an inferior Deadly Strike. Thus, rogues are just inferior fighters with a few extra skills. Bleh.

* The new Two-weapon fighting and critical hit rules are just terrible. No, they're worse than terrible. They're laughably bad.

* Cantrips and Orisons are no longer at-will unless your tradition or domain specifically let you cast a specific cantrip or orison at-will. Yep, you heard me right. They took one of the most resoundingly popular things about 5e, at-will 0th level spells, and took it away. Only generalist wizards get all of their cantrips at-will, and they sacrifice things like an encounter spell that other traditions get to have that privelege. Simply unbelievable.

* Wizards and Clerics have no more than 2 spells of each level per day. And what do they get in compensation? Surely they at least got more at-will spells to fall back on, right? Nope, those got taken away too, with a few specific exceptions chosen for you by your specialty or domain. And those wizard traditions they've been raving about? They just let you use a couple of your cantrips at-will (something all wizards could do with ALL cantrips before), and maybe a single encoutner power that's also chosen for you and a minor save DC bonus on a couple spells.

* Clerics are once again forced to have Turn Undead, whether they (or their god) care about undead or not.  

* Ability scores no longer add to spell damage. Spell damage in general has been nerfed, even though fighters are running around with combat expertise and an extra attack. Yeah, I really want to play a wizard now, shooting off pitiful 1d6 + 3 damage rays of frost all day, except for the few times a day I actually get to cast a daily spell, and even then, it's probably not going to do as much damage as the fighter does every round of every battle, all day long... Welcome everyone to the new age of linear wizards and quadratic fighters.



Actually ability scores do add to spell damage...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Or, as I joked somewhere else, there's a really great system in the three playtests, it's just not all been there at the same time.




Total, that's what I'm doing, and dropping in bits-and-bobs from previous editions.
I think they could've thrown us a new race or two at this point.

That 1st Playtest Packet is looking better, and better (especially the monsters). 



It is shocking, to me, that I am going to say this, but maybe they need to figure the DEHH/CFRW out before they move on to f***ing up more stuff.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
the DEHH/CFRW



?
A "joke", yes.

It's possible to joke and be completely goddamn serious at the same time, right?

The only positive thing I see out of this package is that its not the released product, at least they can swing back to something better - giving more options, more detailed characters and actually show me what they have as a vision for 5e because frankly they seem be adrift.

This edition has to bring something new while improving on the past for me to even concider it, there are a *LOT* of other rpg games out there, D&D I always have a soft spot for and 4e is currently the best for me.

5e seems to be trying to do the timewarp back to a day where d&d had very little competition, those days are past and the game needs to find its own core set of identities to drive it forward and make it seem like a 2012 (2014 release?) game instead of something dreamed up in 1976.

 
the DEHH/CFRW



?



Dwarf Elf Halfling Human/Cleric Fighter Rogue Wizard

Commonly called the Core Four (or Core Bore).
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
A "joke", yes.

It's possible to joke and be completely goddamn serious at the same time, right?



I hope so.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
A "joke", yes.

It's possible to joke and be completely goddamn serious at the same time, right?




Some of the best humor is pointing out how messed up reality is.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
I hope they loosen up some of this bounded accuracy. Right now a 1st level fighter gets +3 on attacks and the 10th level fighter +5. Not what I call great progression. It doesn't feel like a heroic progression. At +7 (?) at level 20 it doesn't sound very epic. Not much difference between the farm boy who had trouble fighting goblins and the knight fighting demi gods.




That is one of the key things I hope they hold too; at this point, Bounded Accuracy is the big innovation/seller for me.

I detest adding +27 or what-have-you to a d20 roll. 
A "joke", yes.

It's possible to joke and be completely goddamn serious at the same time, right?



I hope so.

If not, then George Carlin made a wrong career choice somewhere.


Actually ability scores do add to spell damage...



It used to say under the rules for Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma that if they were your primary magic ability modifier, they added to spell damage. Now they only say they add to attack rolls and save DCs, meaning WotC deliberately removed damage from that. Yes, there is one lingering mention about it under "damage rolls" on p. 16 but that was mostly likely left behind on accident. If not, why would they deliberate remove it from the other places it used to be mentioned?