FA D&D Next Playtest Results #1

     My group just got done playing through our 2nd playtest. We played using almost all the packet rules, the only exception was a change we made to MDD in an attempt to make them less powerful.


                ---Pros---


The new skill system is much more fun to play with. More dice to roll is always a good thing. Also makes DCs attainable for all involved but still makes the actions difficult (without making them unreachable by untrained party members)


Unlimited Cantrips make casters at low level and during low priority encounters more useable and engaged.


Background makes for easy roll play emersion for newer players.


Advantage / Disadvantage are fun to use and plead your case to obtain!


                ---Cons---


Broke ass Barbarians! Tons of damage compared to their encounters at low level.


Advantage /Disadvantage for attacks are weird to grasp at times. Just rolling two dice on a single attack almost feels like cheating. “I am not making two attacks, I shouldn’t get two dice. It doesn’t make sense.” Was a common thought at our table.


This con may be our grasp of the rules, but spell casting damage doesn’t state any |plus (+)| damage from stats anywhere on most spells. IE Cantrips just dealing flat 1d0 instead of dealing 1d10(+INT). Most damaging spells seemed to follow this guideline. But it’s very possible we just missed something in our play packets.


Need access to training more than 4 skills in our opinion.


No Gnomes apart of the core. Give me my min-eez!


 


All in all, we had a lot of fun and will be testing more in the future. Looking forward to more classes and races!

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Advantage /Disadvantage for attacks are weird to grasp at times. Just rolling two dice on a single attack almost feels like cheating. “I am not making two attacks, I shouldn’t get two dice. It doesn’t make sense.” Was a common thought at our table.

I really like the advantage/disadvantage system in its current form. I'd suggest not thinking of using two d20s as making two attacks, but just as rolling two d20 and dropping the lowest for a single attack with advantage (or the opposite if you have disadvantage), which is the intention.
What happened to more dice rolls is better?

You're not making two attacks - you're going to ditch one dice roll.

If you had this problem with elven accuracy in 4e, okay.

Otherwise this is just elven accuracy.

If it makes you feel better, roll it like elven accurancy - roll once, then decide if you want to roll again and take that if it's higher.

I really like the advantage rule/rolling two dice. Feels good.

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

I personally have no problem with this in its current form. A couple of my old school (we are talking 1st and 2nd edition junkies) players did, and i can see their point. I like the idea of rolling ome then deciding to roll a second time and keep the result.

Anyone have thoughts on the magic damage portion of the post? Looked it back over and it still didnt seem clear to me...
I personally have no problem with this in its current form. A couple of my old school (we are talking 1st and 2nd edition junkies) players did, and i can see their point. I like the idea of rolling ome then deciding to roll a second time and keep the result. Anyone have thoughts on the magic damage portion of the post? Looked it back over and it still didnt seem clear to me...



You are right about spell damage. Currently you add your stat modifier to your ATTACK roll, but not to your damage roll.
Does that seem off to you alienux?

Also, thinking on Lance of Faith. Its a bit too strong compaired to wizard cantrips
It doesn't seem off to me, but then again I see fighters as a class that should do more damage than wizards (hence the damage bonus), and wizards as more of a creative class that use spells for many things in addition to damage without being able to match the fighter in damage dealt. I know a lot of people want the wizard to be as dangerous in pure damage dealt as the fighter, but thats always been counter to how I see these classes.
   I have to disagree here. In the case of lore (or whatever you want to call it), the art of magic is a much more dedicated and difficult practice then a "fighting" class. Any above average commoner can become a soldier, grunt, mercenary, pirate, ect. But it's the mage or wizard that is always feared.
   Don't get me wrong though, this is coming from a guy who always favors melee classes and ways to evolve close combat in general. I just believe that the casting classes should have atleast as much "potency" (if not more) then the martial classes.
Even though I disagree with that approach, I know people who feel the same way that you do about it. The great thing about D&D is that you can always house rule having the wizards add modifiers to their damage if that's what you like.
Sound logic, but i already feel like i have to increase the HP of enemies because if MDD. If i increase magic damage over current melee standards, ill have to increase numbers all the way around...
I guess im hoping for WotC to uo some numbers in a few areas X__X