Ok now that we've had our time to panic

How does the new playtest stack up on it's own without getitng compared to the 2nd?

Are the new versions of the classes balanced/interesting when taken on their own merits? 
Taken on its own, PT3's Feats and Specialties are lackluster and boring. Stat and level prerequisites have reared their ugly heads. TWF needs work even as a baseline ability. Dwarves do not have an immunity but Elves do, causing an odd philosophical disconnect in racial design.

The base mechanics are in such desperate need of work classes can't even be analyzed for balance.
Fighters seem to be.  I'm liking them.  My only real concern is how the expertise dice will scale, at higher levels.

Clerics aren't bad, if you ignore the reduction in spell slots.  Still not sure how I feel about that change, for them.  Given their method of spellcasting, maybe it wasn't a bad idea.  They can still do an awful lot with the slots they have, and it makes up for all of their other knacks.  I think I'll want to see that playtested, to be sure, though.

As for rogues and wizards...  Ugh...  Rather than retype a bunch of stuff, I'll just cut and paste a couple of pertinent points from my earlier post:


Wizards

I think there was a growing sense, before this playtest, that wizards, who give up pretty much EVERYTHING to be spellcasters, ought to be better in that department that anyone else - or, at least, more interesting.  So, what's WotC's brilliant solution to this problem?  Halve their spell slots, over the long run.

Wow.  I must say I didn't see that one coming.


Seriously, this not only means that they can cast less spells, it also means that they can prep less, making it that much less likely that they will have what they need on hand, during any given adventure.  And it just begs wizard players to stop and rest more often - something I thought we were supposed to be getting away from.  (And, no, I don't think being able to cast magic missile over and over - and over and over and...yawn...over - again is going to fix that)  The class has not only taken a strength hit but a versatility one, as well - just what it didn't need.  I was already having trouble convincing people to playtest wizards, once they added sorcerers and warlocks; judging by the wide-eyed reaction, locally, I think that goal has just become pretty much impossible...


Now, clerics got smacked with this one, as well, but at least their relatively generous "prep-anything-you-want-then-cast-it-any-way-you want" system mitigates the problem, somewhat.  Wizards, with their much more limited "prep-only-what's-in-your-book-and-cast-it-exactly-as-you-prepped-it" system, suffer much more seriously from this change, especially past 5th level or so on.  (Sidenote: I also notice they are focusing on spellbooks, again.  Good plan.  Let's bring back a system that forces players to pay gold for their abilities and offers a chance that their only real class feature could be lost altogether, all in the interest of flavor.  I ask you: what other class pays gold for their abilities and has a chance of permanently losing them?)


Yes, I know, wizards got their new tradition system, but that doesn't even come close to making up for this nerfing.  Let's look at the academic mage, for example.  They can use their cantrips at will.  Oh, wait... Couldn't they do that before this playest?  And they get one extra slot.  Uh... that would be one extra slot given back... er... from all the ones that were taken away?  Kind of like me robbing you blind and then expecting you to be grateful when I toss one of your own bucks into your tin cup, while you're begging on the street.  And don't get me started on the other two traditions.  Okay, I will say one thing about them: wizards are supposed to be about versatility, not having your choices made for you.  Grrr...resistance breaking down... well, one more thing: a single 1st level signature level, which I don't get to choose?  1st level?  Even when my wizard is 20th level?  Really, guys...


Rogues

Okay, let me first say that giving rogues maneuvers has interesting possibilities.  I'm not entirely adverse to that.  But it inevitably leads to a direct comparison between rogues and fighters, and, once you make that comparison, you see that rogues are just... sad...  They have crappier weapons, crappier armor, a crappier attack bonus, and MUCH crappier hit points.  They have roughly the same sort of selection of maneuvers as fighters (in terms of variety, available number, and such, I mean), but - and this is the real kicker - they only get them every three levels, instead of every two.  Oh, and, as compared to previous playtests, sneak attack has been kicked down a notch - assuming that you have it at all.  And, in return for all of these losses, what do they get in return?  Training in four extra skills.  In a system that is striving hard to undervalue skills.  Am I the only one who can't get his head around how they could possibly think this was even remotely balanced?


Try sitting down and making a 6th level fighter with roguish tendencies.  Then make a 6th level rogue with fighterish tendencies.  The result is just plain embarassing, for the rogue.  Shouldn't WotC have tried doing just that?


BTW, I'm not one of those people who thinks rogues should be as good in combat as fighters.  They shouldn't be.  But they should be better than fighters at their own thing, which means, at the very least, that if you are going to use maneuvers to represent "their own thing," then you should give them just as many as fighters, not two-thirds as many.  Duh...

Rogues are horrible. As in, not worth playing horrible. Fighters and wizards seem intresting so far. 
I'm liking the fighter.

I'm liking the cleric, but I'd prefer one extra 1st level spell slot to start with.

I'm liking the rogue, but I'm missing a feature called Backstab. It would be best if it was a condition-imposing attack I could make given the right conditions.

I'm okay with the wizard, but the traditions are a mess.

 

Danny

 (And, no, I don't think being able to cast magic missile over and over - and over and over and...yawn...over - again is going to fix that)  



Well, now you cannot even cast magic missile over and over. It is now a Level 1 Spell!!!
It's not the amount of maneuvers that bug me, it's how so many of them are the same for both classes. Not to mention they both use E-dice identically. 

See to mee the rogue should have expertise focused on speed and mobility while the sneak attack does their heavy offensive lifting. 
 (And, no, I don't think being able to cast magic missile over and over - and over and over and...yawn...over - again is going to fix that)  



Well, now you cannot even cast magic missile over and over. It is now a Level 1 Spell!!!

Ugh. Yes. Well, make that Ray of Frost. If (and only if) you're an academic. Again, I say: ugh.
It's not the amount of maneuvers that bug me, it's how so many of them are the same for both classes. Not to mention they both use E-dice identically. 

See to mee the rogue should have expertise focused on speed and mobility while the sneak attack does their heavy offensive lifting. 

There definitely needs to he more motility-based maneuvers for the rogue. I really like the current incarnation Sneak Attack -- it works, and it makes sense. I'd rather there be a Backstab feature, separate from the manuver list, that provides offensive lifting.

Danny

I can say that this playtest took me from "Somewhat interested in their ideas. I'm not sure if this is something I would buy, but I'd consider it if these ideas get fleshed out better" to "Flip through a few pages on the shelf, put the book down, and move on."
Taken on its own, PT3's Feats and Specialties are lackluster and boring. Stat and level prerequisites have reared their ugly heads. TWF needs work even as a baseline ability. Dwarves do not have an immunity but Elves do, causing an odd philosophical disconnect in racial design. The base mechanics are in such desperate need of work classes can't even be analyzed for balance.

Level and stat requirements were introduced because free selection of feats was finally introduced. They didn't have them before because selecting a custom set of feats was not an option, therefore it was needless to include them.

Also, everyone complained endlessly about the dwarf getting poison immunity. It's no wonder it's gone.
My two copper.
Taken on its own, PT3's Feats and Specialties are lackluster and boring. Stat and level prerequisites have reared their ugly heads. TWF needs work even as a baseline ability. Dwarves do not have an immunity but Elves do, causing an odd philosophical disconnect in racial design. The base mechanics are in such desperate need of work classes can't even be analyzed for balance.

Level and stat requirements were introduced because free selection of feats was finally introduced. They didn't have them before because selecting a custom set of feats was not an option, therefore it was needless to include them.

Also, everyone complained endlessly about the dwarf getting poison immunity. It's no wonder it's gone.

Free Feat selection is no excuse for stat/level prerequisites. Feat trees at least serve a purpose, whereas arbitrary stat/level limitations do not.

People were complaining about racial immunities across the board. I'm not complaining about the Dwarf losing one, I'm complaining about the Elf keeping one.
Taken on its own, PT3's Feats and Specialties are lackluster and boring. Stat and level prerequisites have reared their ugly heads. TWF needs work even as a baseline ability. Dwarves do not have an immunity but Elves do, causing an odd philosophical disconnect in racial design. The base mechanics are in such desperate need of work classes can't even be analyzed for balance.

Level and stat requirements were introduced because free selection of feats was finally introduced. They didn't have them before because selecting a custom set of feats was not an option, therefore it was needless to include them.

Also, everyone complained endlessly about the dwarf getting poison immunity. It's no wonder it's gone.

Free Feat selection is no excuse for stat/level prerequisites. Feat trees at least serve a purpose, whereas arbitrary stat/level limitations do not. People were complaining about racial immunities across the board. I'm not complaining about the Dwarf losing one, I'm complaining about the Elf keeping one.



If you lost level/stat requirements? What requirements are left? Other feats? Because if thats so, wouldn't it be just like picking a specialty where you have to take them in a certain order?
My two copper.
If you lost level/stat requirements? What requirements are left? Other feats? Because if thats so, wouldn't it be just like picking a specialty where you have to take them in a certain order?

Not really. Specialties might not follow Feat trees. TWF is a relatively classic Feat tree, but the Specialty might give you TWF and the TWD as opposed to ITWF. With both, we could have more variation. Or we could do away with Specialties entirely, since they really serve no purpose other than to hold a new player's hand as opposed to them learning the actual game.
I like the idea of the Wizard Traditions, but I hate the idea that some 0 level spells can be at will while others take up spell slots and are burnt when used.   This makes the little things that Wizards do much more complicated than it has to be.   We should keep all 0 level spells "at will".   Let the Traditions give signature spells and or additional spell slot with special riders for certain spells within school (like the illusion school that adds 2 to DC of caster's illusion spells).

I like the way the Cleric is moving.   With cure spells as ranged power words, it helps avoid "healbot" problem.   Turn undead at will as an action may be too good, but I'll have to see how it works in the game.    I guess it is possible that the d10 roll will not be high enough to affect any undead (especially at 1st level).  Again...I don't like the limit on 0 level spells for Clerics either...more unnecessary complication.

I like the idea of the Rogue begin able to choose what to do with the expertise dice, but like others, I would like Rogue to be a little stronger in combat/DPS (with a boost to sneak attack).   I'm also concerned that the rogue has 1d6 hd....and the wizard has 1d6 hp.   I'd be fine with giving rogue 1d8 hp to make him match the cleric.

It is good to see some more challenging monsters.   I'm still not sure the "to hit" scores are right, but since they nerfed PC damage, I think I'll go back to using monsters as is to test.  (I had previously decided to add +2 to monster "to hit" scores).

Fighter was too good before.   Now he seems ok.  I'm still concerned with the AC 17 and AC 18 PCs though, especially when they start to get high 20s and 30s of hit points.   But now that parry is less available and it absorbs less damage, the invulerability issue from before may be addressed.

I'm glad that any PC can try to do push, grab, knockdown.   This will be very important for fighters, especially when they gain the extra attack at 6th level.

I'm looking forward to running my next playtest session.  Unfortunately it won't be for a few weeks.


          

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

If you lost level/stat requirements? What requirements are left? Other feats? Because if thats so, wouldn't it be just like picking a specialty where you have to take them in a certain order?

Not really. Specialties might not follow Feat trees. TWF is a relatively classic Feat tree, but the Specialty might give you TWF and the TWD as opposed to ITWF. With both, we could have more variation. Or we could do away with Specialties entirely, since they really serve no purpose other than to hold a new player's hand as opposed to them learning the actual game.



I would say these two things are far too simliar to co-exist. Feat trees and Specialties seem completely redundant to have at the same time :P

Either way I could go either way with stat requiremtents, but as long as they are kept to a manageable level I don't see them being an issue. Face it, a figher with 8 int is not going to take arcane magic specialist. Pretty much no one would make that character. However having requirements above 14 or so is basically limiting it to certain classes. That I do have a problem with.

And level requirements just limit power. They are needed in some instances to keep rediculous feats out of the hands of power gamers Could they come up with another method of limiting this? Maybe. But level reqs arent bad version to have.
My two copper.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Turn undead at will as an action may be too good, but I'll have to see how it works in the game.    I guess it is possible that the d10 roll will not be high enough to affect any undead (especially at 1st level).



That's actually one of the few changes that I like and hope they keep in this playtest. I prefer not having to keep track of features that are situational. Well, that, and they also finally decided to give us back Command Undead for Dark Clerics.
I don't mind level requirements.

Sometimes feat trees make sense - Improved XYZ really shouldn't be available if you don't already have XYZ.

However, sometimes they don't. And a feat still needs to be restricted to higher levels because it's overpowered at low levels. In that case, it is far better to have a level requirement than to have a nonsensical feat prerequisite. (Particularly if the prerequisite feat is not, on its own, worth taking. "I declare my dodge on you.")

In addition, if Humans get an extra feat slot as has been suggested, that would make a mess of using feat trees in lieu of level requirements. Which may mean that some feats will need sensible feat prerequisites *and* level requirements.

If they do 3E style multiclassing, then level prerequisites on feats need to specify if they are *class* level or *character* level (and in the latter case it may be appropriate to have XP prerequisites rather than level prerequisites).
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I don't mind level requirements.

Hard level requirement is far less obnoxious than a disguised minimum level (such as all of those "BAB 7" things in 3E), or punting a feat up several levels via nonsense prereqs (see also: Spring Attack).

I don't think level requirements are something to rule out at this point.  While I understand and agree with the idea that it's appealing to have all feats independent of level, the presence of level requirements would allow for substantive differences in power level among feats.

What concerns me about doing that is that you then have a situation where it's hard to justify taking "weak" feats if more powerful ones are available.  There's a tension involved between the very real possibility of a feat changing the way your character plays (and a higher likelihood of that happening if the feat is stronger) and the perception of making a "bad" character if you take weak feats.  Note that I said perception, as optimization level of individual characters is a very personal level.  But the idea of all feats being roughly equivalent, with very very few pre-reqs of any kind, is very appealing.

Improved X really should require X.  But the feat trees of 3e certainly don't need to be repeated.

Oh, and ability score prereqs for feats are the devil.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
What concerns me about doing that is that you then have a situation where it's hard to justify taking "weak" feats if more powerful ones are available.

The retraining system just means "I'm level X now" translates to "I'm 'retraining' my feats, and it's just a mere coinicdence they all have 'minimum level X'."

The real question is: Will Quicken Spell, Iron Hide, Master Detective, or even Restore Life really break the game at level one?
Oh, and ability score prereqs for feats are the devil.

No, the devil tends to be 'fun', at least for a while.  Stat minimums cant even do that.
Kill it.  Kill it now.
And level requirements just limit power. They are needed in some instances to keep rediculous feats out of the hands of power gamers Could they come up with another method of limiting this? Maybe. But level reqs arent bad version to have.

They could balance the game to prevent any ridiculous Feats from being in the game at all. Then there would be nothing to keep out of the hands of power gamers.

As it stands the Feats are so poor they feel designed to be kept out of the hands of any gamers.
4th ed had prerequisites on its feats, it just disguised them better via the tiers. I don't want long feat trees but have 1 maybe 2 prerequisite feats is fine IMHO.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

4th ed had prerequisites on its feats, it just disguised them better via the tiers. I don't want long feat trees but have 1 maybe 2 prerequisite feats is fine IMHO.

Agreed.  While the lengthy TWF tree was... okay for 3.X Ed., it would look rather out of place in DDN.  Trees would only be for these kinds of logical progression chains, and really for nothing else IMO.  Quick Draw to Flick of the Wrist kind of stuff.

Taken on its own, PT3's Feats and Specialties are lackluster and boring. Stat and level prerequisites have reared their ugly heads. TWF needs work even as a baseline ability. Dwarves do not have an immunity but Elves do, causing an odd philosophical disconnect in racial design. The base mechanics are in such desperate need of work classes can't even be analyzed for balance.



I agree.  I think that the specialties are the most disappointing.  I was really excited about the concept when they added themes to Darksun in 4e and specialties looked to be the 5e equivalent.  Hopefully they will reconsider toning them down as much as they did in this play test packet.

Ok:

Monsters are still borked, almost beyond words.

Many magic items are still borked, especially if "bounded accuracy" is going to be more than a catchphrase.

Fighter differention of CS dice types is good, but they still should be starting with 2 dice, 2d4 would be fine (just ditch the auto-damage bonus and it's basically the same raw damage anyhow) but shifting some options over into "everyone can use these" won't make up for a lost manoeuvre unless they give Fighters the ability to do one AND attack for damage at the cost of a CS dice.

Wizards spells are MUCH better, the numbers AND the spells themselves... though the Traditions are a mess and need additional flexability.

Clerics look great, best so far.

Rogues... some improvement, but being totally non-combat (which they basically are now) is not ok.

I'm not very happy with the feat and speciality changes... the last packet looked better here and the expanded skill list is TERRIBAD!

...

So, it's not ALL bad.

But it's pretty bad overall.                   
Wizards

I think there was a growing sense, before this playtest, that wizards, who give up pretty much EVERYTHING to be spellcasters, ought to be better in that department that anyone else - or, at least, more interesting.  So, what's WotC's brilliant solution to this problem?  Halve their spell slots, over the long run.

Wow.  I must say I didn't see that one coming.


Seriously, this not only means that they can cast less spells, it also means that they can prep less, making it that much less likely that they will have what they need on hand, during any given adventure.





The spell number seems a non-issue to me. Two per level is plenty. In previous editions, for most of the career, the Wizard only has one highest level spell, maybe two. And only two maybe three of the next lower level. Lower than that, the spells become less powerful and less useful. Especially because there is no more quadratic Wizard, the lowest level spells are trivial compared to the current high level challenges. So having two spells at the lowest levels is fine, easier to track and manage, and prevents the Wizard from becoming the “better than any class at anything” class.

Wizards

I think there was a growing sense, before this playtest, that wizards, who give up pretty much EVERYTHING to be spellcasters, ought to be better in that department that anyone else - or, at least, more interesting.  So, what's WotC's brilliant solution to this problem?  Halve their spell slots, over the long run.

Wow.  I must say I didn't see that one coming.


Seriously, this not only means that they can cast less spells, it also means that they can prep less, making it that much less likely that they will have what they need on hand, during any given adventure.





The spell number seems a non-issue to me. Two per level is plenty. In previous editions, for most of the career, the Wizard only has one highest level spell, maybe two. And only two maybe three of the next lower level. Lower than that, the spells become less powerful and less usesful. Especially because there is no more quadratic Wizard, the lowest level spells are trivial compared to the current high level challenges. So having two spells at the lowest levels is fine, easier to track and manage, and prevents the Wizard from becoming the “better than any class at anything” class.




I'd like to have on or two more spells per level, but if it helps balance classes I might agree with this except with cantrips.   Wizards should be able to prepare many of the cantrips like light, mage hand, read magic without having to give up cantrip spell slots to do it.   Let wizards prepare 6 or more cantrips.   It adds flavor and depth to the characters without giving them game changing powers.


   

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I don't mind level requirements.

Sometimes feat trees make sense - Improved XYZ really shouldn't be available if you don't already have XYZ.

However, sometimes they don't. And a feat still needs to be restricted to higher levels because it's overpowered at low levels. In that case, it is far better to have a level requirement than to have a nonsensical feat prerequisite. (Particularly if the prerequisite feat is not, on its own, worth taking. "I declare my dodge on you.")

In addition, if Humans get an extra feat slot as has been suggested, that would make a mess of using feat trees in lieu of level requirements. Which may mean that some feats will need sensible feat prerequisites *and* level requirements.

If they do 3E style multiclassing, then level prerequisites on feats need to specify if they are *class* level or *character* level (and in the latter case it may be appropriate to have XP prerequisites rather than level prerequisites).

+1

I don't think level requirements are something to rule out at this point. What concerns me about doing that is that you then have a situation where it's hard to justify taking "weak" feats if more powerful ones are available.

Feat slots could have levels, similar to how spell slots have levels. So, a level 3 feat slot can only be used to obtain a feat with a prereq of level 3 or lower.

[Wizards should be able to prepare many of the cantrips like light, mage hand, read magic without having to give up cantrip spell slots to do it...   It adds flavor and depth to the characters without giving them game changing powers.
  




I don't think I'd like to see too many "put what you want into these" cantrip slots.

But giving every mage Prestigiation, Light, Mage Hand and Read Magic for free wouldn't hurt anyone.

And it'd be cool.   
Wizards

I think there was a growing sense, before this playtest, that wizards, who give up pretty much EVERYTHING to be spellcasters, ought to be better in that department that anyone else - or, at least, more interesting.  So, what's WotC's brilliant solution to this problem?  Halve their spell slots, over the long run.

Wow.  I must say I didn't see that one coming.


Seriously, this not only means that they can cast less spells, it also means that they can prep less, making it that much less likely that they will have what they need on hand, during any given adventure.





The spell number seems a non-issue to me. Two per level is plenty. In previous editions, for most of the career, the Wizard only has one highest level spell, maybe two. And only two maybe three of the next lower level. Lower than that, the spells become less powerful and less useful. Especially because there is no more quadratic Wizard, the lowest level spells are trivial compared to the current high level challenges. So having two spells at the lowest levels is fine, easier to track and manage, and prevents the Wizard from becoming the “better than any class at anything” class.


Actually, I don't think the spell slot reduction would have bothered me so much, if it was balanced out by something interesting/useful in the traditions. But the academic tradition really just gave back a small portion of what was taken away, and the other two didn't even do that. As I said before, wizards are all about versatility - they have given up EVERTHING - weapons, armor, hit points, etc. - just for that. Halving the spell slots greatly reduces their versatility, not so much because they can cast less but because they can prep less. If that sort of versatility is going to be taken away, some other sort should compensate for it.
I'd like to have one or two more spells per level, but if it helps balance classes I might agree with this except with cantrips.

Wizards should be able to prepare many of the cantrips like light, mage hand, read magic without having to give up cantrip spell slots to do it.   Let wizards prepare 6 or more cantrips.   It adds flavor and depth to the characters without giving them game changing powers. 

It makes sense to me if cantrips arent necessarily atwill. Then certain cantrips become “signature cantrips”, depending on study. That the Academic masters all of the cantrips can make sense.
[Actually, I don't think the spell slot reduction would have bothered me so much, if it was balanced out by something interesting/useful in the traditions. But the academic tradition really just gave back a small portion of what was taken away, and the other two didn't even do that.

As I said before, wizards are all about versatility - they have given up EVERTHING - weapons, armor, hit points, etc. - just for that. Halving the spell slots greatly reduces their versatility, not so much because they can cast less but because they can prep less. If that sort of versatility is going to be taken away, some other sort should compensate for it.

At the same time, most of the utility spells can be cast as rituals. (Hopefully without gp.)
The spell number seems a non-issue to me. Two per level is plenty. In previous editions, for most of the career, the Wizard only has one highest level spell, maybe two. And only two maybe three of the next lower level. Lower than that, the spells become less powerful and less useful.



Have you ever tried telling that to the wizard who just knew he had to make his entire party Fly the next day? Or Feather Fall, for that reason? Or how's about the wizard who could disable a common guard with Ray of Enfeeblement? The wizard who used Enlarged items to block doors, passengers, even people? Or even just the wizard in a campaign that wasn't as forgiving as most are at allowing opportunities to rest?

I'm in some strange place between "wow, that's really neat" and "I'm not sure how that made it into this packet". Dwarves and Elves got a bit of trimming, but nothing game shattering. Fat Hobbits still seem like the step child of all core races.

I will join the chorus of folks saying they would like to see Rogues interact differently with their expertise dice than fighters do.

Maybe give them more dice, but have them gain them back more slowly  (1 per turn instead of all per turn) 

I think I would like to see everyone using Expertise to get more dice at a smaller size.  Give the players a chance to mix and match manuvers where possible in a turn, and not just dump everything into one ability.

I like some of what they did with skills, adding certain missing ones in, and combining like skills.  However, they have a few new ones that should likely merge back into one skill.

Specialties are nice, and there are actually a few feats that seem tempting, (improved init improved, the skill ones can be amazing with the right skill)

You can definately build the ranger-lite with this packet. 
Oh, and ability score prereqs for feats are the devil.



Yeah, I hate ability score prereqs with a passion because they require you to plan out your character from level 1.
Yeah, I hate ability score prereqs with a passion because they require you to plan out your character from level 1.


Ah. That is a good reason.
Yeah, I hate ability score prereqs with a passion because they require you to plan out your character from level 1.


Ah. That is a good reason.


I'll actually revoke my argument for ability reqs for this reason. My stance on level reqs remains unchanged however.
My two copper.

I'll actually revoke my argument for ability reqs for this reason. My stance on level reqs remains unchanged however.



Level prereqs are fine so long as they're at standardized breakpoints, so it doesn't get confusing to remember. Basically so it works similar to 4E tiers.

Having prereqs of 5/10/15/20 isn't bad, but you don't want feats to start having a bunch of oddball prereqs.

Sign In to post comments