3/20 packet: 3 good, 3 bad

I think there was a thread like this last big packet; list the three things that are most interesting or exciting to you and three that are most disappointing. (As a ground rule, I'd prefer people not list features they haven't released yet in the "bad" section - we all want spell casting modules and warlocks and so on.)

My good:
1. Deadly Strike looks simpler and cleaner than I'd expected. Same with the multiattack options fighters and rogues get. I'm also glad rogues are a step behind fighters on DS progression, making room for a more powerful sneak attack.
2. Skill system changes. I love that you can choose a new trained skill rather than upping your die size - this actually addresses a big concern I'd had with 5e.
3. I like the Druid in general, but especially the wildshape mechanic.

Bad:
1. Rogues have no build options past level 1 and are weirdly front-loaded.
2. All the cool maneuvers got turned into feats, and the cool new expertise dice for fighters are mostly used for boring bonuses.
3. Paladins and rangers rely too much on cleric/Druid spells. If they MUST have spells, they should at least be mostly unique.
Sure, this seems like a nice way to get across my feelings...

My good:
1. Druid - I think the Druid is an extremely exciting class. The numbers / math might be off in some cases, but I really would like to try this out pronto. I love the ability to Wild Shape at level 1, while still retaining the "feel" of old school Wild Shape. The Circles feel nice, though it unfortunately covers most of what a Druid can do. Perhaps 4 Circles, two for Wild Shaping focusing on different animal aspects, and two for casting, perhaps defensive and offensive? I'd also like more choices for Wild Shaping, i.e. not all druids turn into dogs.

2. Experimentation with Class Feature Design - This covers a lot of things I like. Most of the Ranger's abilities (especially Favored Enemy) and Paladin Abilities, as well as taking chances with other classes. Even if I don't like some of the changes made, the fact that they are willing to experiment with changing classes around gives me hope that nothing is set in stone and this will be a good finished product.

3. Spell Saves - While not talked about much, I think the fact that most spells now use saves instead of attack rolls is really nice. 

My bad:
1. Fighters / Rogues - I feel that both these classes received a significant beating. They lost most of the customization and interesting abilities, and Fighters now just get Bonus Feats...

2. Races - I realize that not much work has been put into Races for a while, but I'd like to see some significant progress in this department, especially regarding boring Humans. The removal of a +2 is good, but they are still extremely boring, and in my eyes, +1 to all is still too good.

3. Spell Saves - I'd really like to see every stat used. I'd also like to see various stat contests used for Fighter and Rogue maneuvers / abilities. Basically, I'd like to see all stats be very useful (see: No Dump Stat) and allow everyone to do cool things with them.
I agree about the Rogue. All of its remaining abilities can be duplicated by other classes. It doesn't really seem to have a role anymore.

The Barabarian looks cool, though.
Good:
1. Hugely happy that martial player damage was nerfed across the board. I hope this means combats are longer and deadlier. Deadly Strike / Multiattack options are great.

2. Druid looks fun, especially the wild shapes. Plenty of options and highly adaptable. However, I worry that the wild shapes won't scale well. I also worry that allowing "passive" magic items to function while wildshaped is unclear. If I can get +1 AC from a ring of protection, does that mean I also get +1 AC from my +1 hide armor? +1 attack and damage from magic weapons?

3. I approve of the Fighter changes, though minor tweaks are still needed (e.g., Death Dealer doesn't really scale well. What's +1d6 damage at level 15?).

Bad:
1. I dislike cleric deities, druid circles, monk paths, paladin oaths, rogue schemes, and ranger favored enemies, and wizard traditions. I want to customize my character along the way. I don't want to be locked into a path. The fighter gets meaningful choices all throughout the first 10 levels. Spellcasters get tons of choices with spell selection. However, the ranger says, "I f*cking hate dragons" at level 1 and then gets locked into a path. The assassin rogue must be a master bluffer rather than having to option for climbing or trap removal mastery.

2. Basic problems from last packet weren't addressed. Cure minor wounds still results in a party full of inflateable clowns (punch them down, they get back up). Disarming and getting knocked prone still too easy to reverse (pick up weapon as free action, standing up costs only 5 movement).  Combat hugging still unaddressed, and ranged attacks in melee and casting in melee are both still allowed without penalty. Skill list is still awful (okay, we lost Use Rope, yay, but Break an Object and Drive are up there?).

3. Post-level 10 is empty and boring. Many of the abilities up there seem unbalanced or lacking. Honestly, just cut them out and leave them for a future update, once we figure out what paragon/epic levels exactly are.
Addendum: Stop front-loading abilities so much. It's bad for multiclassing and it's bad for new players who are still getting used to the rules. Explaining Combat Expertise (from the last packet) to a brand new player still trying to figure out the difference between attack and damage rolls was a nightmare.

4. *BONUS* Exploration is a huge let-down. Takes way too many rolls to resolve anything.

Bad:
1. I dislike cleric deities, druid circles, monk paths, paladin oaths, rogue schemes, and ranger favored enemies, and wizard traditions. I want to customize my character along the way. I don't want to be locked into a path. The fighter gets meaningful choices all throughout the first 10 levels. Spellcasters get tons of choices with spell selection. However, the ranger says, "I f*cking hate dragons" at level 1 and then gets locked into a path. The assassin rogue must be a master bluffer rather than having to option for climbing or trap removal mastery.



I see this more as a negative for the Fighter rather than the other classes. In the previous packet, the Fighter had Fighting Styles, which suggested a collection of related Maneuvers and made character creation very quick for them. Now it is clunky and there are a few levels where I might not want any of the options and would prefer an extra option from a previous level.

Mike Mearls has said in his column a few times that they are designing the game in 3 tiers (Basic, Standard and Advanced). The Basic game is meant to be very options light where you can start a game by stating that you are a Human Fighter with the Soldier Background, Defender Specialty and Protector Fighting Style and create a character in 5 minutes. 
The Standard game is where you go into the details of picking skills, feats and class features individually.

While I agree that classes should not be locked into these paths, at this stage in the playtest I think it is beneficial to have these predefined paths and then add rules later that says "Here's a list of options, create your own Favoured Enemy/Oath/Deity/Fighting Style etc."

Anyway, my 3 and 3

Good:

  1. Amalgamation of all the non-Cantrip "Cure" and "Inflict" spells into Cure Wounds and Inflict Wounds. This, I like, as it frees up prepared spell spaces for other useful spells rather than filling the lists with as many different levels of Cure Wounds as possible and then going back for Bless, Zone of Truth etc.

  2. Despite my comments above and below about the Fighter, I do like the switch from MDD and MDB to Deadly Strike and Multi-Attack. 

  3. Intelligence modifier governing the number of languages you know. This was something I have already house ruled and it is nice to see it as an official rule again. 


Bad:

  1. Bonus feats as class features. This is lazy design and goes against the idea that feats are optional. 

  2. More and more standard combat options are becoming feats. Again this goes against the "feats are optional" concept. Just like anybody can dual wield, anybody should be able to trip, disarm, bull rush or charge, the feats should exist to make you better at doing it or being able to do so in addition to a normal attack.

  3. Druid and Wizard don't seem to be well balanced against each other. The Druid looks fun, the Wizard still needs more of a boost

Good -

1. I am really excited by the Paladin, even if I think the wording the class uses could better reflect the flavor of each subtype, the class itself looks really interesting and I am excited to try it out. I have been using a cleric with channel positive energy and channel wrath to make a pseudo-paladin, so I am really pleased by smite and lay on hands.

2. "You can cast any combination of the spells you have prepared for the day, as long as you respect the limit on the number of spells of that level you can cast in one day. For example, if you can cast 2 first level spells and have cure wounds and blessing prepared, you can cast one of each or either one twice."

3. The race rework is a step in the right direction, though I still think the human is really good. I'd like to see the human versatility reflected with a +1 to any 2 ability scores and some sort of non stat bonus.

Bad -

1. NEARLY EVERYTHING* about the fighter/rogue. Its all several giant steps backward. I hate bonus feats as the classes defining feature, I think multiple attacks is a slipperly slope, and the new expertise dice are boring compared to last iterations MDD.

2. The druid being, at first glance, strictly better than the wizard.

3. The Paladin's mount feature and automatic knowledge of the location of celestial/abyssal/undead... both seem, silly.

*I think that that the multiplication of weapon dice is a great way to scale damage. 

3. Spell Saves - I'd really like to see every stat used. I'd also like to see various stat contests used for Fighter and Rogue maneuvers / abilities. Basically, I'd like to see all stats be very useful (see: No Dump Stat) and allow everyone to do cool things with them.


+1 
As far as spell saves go, I think DEX, WIS, and CON are used pretty extensively. STR has a few rolls, but not enough. INT and CHA are the bastard stepchildren though, and if more spells and monster abilities used them as saves they'd be less dumpy. I really don't want to have to wait for psionics before INT becomes widespread, and CHA needs more non-social applications.
This is my favorite packet in quite some time.

Good Things:

1) Fighters seem cool again.
2) The Rogue's Attack Bonus Progression is sensible once again.  Glad to see this.  Now the same needs to happen to the Monk and Ranger.
3) We get Paladins!  And they have a nice, traditional feel to them--mostly (see complaint below).

...and because I couldn't confine myself to just three things:

4) Shields don't suck as badly as they have in previous packets.
5) The Iron Hide feat.

Bad Things:

1) The Monk is still dreadfully, disgustingly overpowered.  I'd have been happy enough if they'd just get rid of Perfect Self.  The 5E Monk remains banned at my table.
2) The neutral paladin's nature theme has absolutely got to go.  Too Druid-y.  Eww.  Just Eww!
3) Many of the low-level monsters' Attack Bonuses are still just a bit too high.  This is offset somewhat by shields now being better and the addition of the Iron Hide feat being universally available, though, so maybe it's not so bad.

I still haven't looked over the classes in which I have little interest, like the Druid and Wizard, but overall this packet isn't bad.  It shows definite improvement over the last two.  There is yet hope for the future of D&D Next.  Laughing

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.


1) The Monk is still dreadfully, disgustingly overpowered.  I'd have been happy enough if they'd just get rid of Perfect Self.  The 5E Monk remains banned at my table.


Wow, really?

From what I've heard, they aren't terribly attractive since they haven't gotten Flurry of Blows, and Perfect Self doesn't seem very useful since we're not getting into Epic Levels yet...
  
2) The neutral paladin's nature theme has absolutely got to go.  Too Druid-y.  Eww.  Just Eww!


Do what I did when I remembered the Neckbeards on /tg/ didn't want to play Warden; Make a Lawful Neutral Blackguard with Rebuke Undead traded for a refluffed Nature's Wrath.
BAM!  "Dreadguard" who goes around invoking etheral spiked chains in the name of "DA LAAAAAH!"

Three good things

1.  For the most part, theater of the mind is still a viable option and while combats will probably be a little bit longer, they don't have the hour + bloat of of later editions

2.  Martial damage dice and martial damage bonus is gone.  The community was listened to and instead of bumping all of the other classes up to be as powerful as the fighter, the figher was brought under control

3.  Skill dice improvement is a good choice:  learn more skills or get better at what you do. Now to separate feats from 'what you can or can't do' from 'what you're good at'.      


Three bad things.  I'll hold my judgement on the new classes until I play them or see them played.

1.  The cleric is still overpowered.  Turn Undead is automatic, with no save - a fifth level cleric could theoretically turn 120 zombies (were he 100% surrounded within his range - won't happen, but bear with me) with no save for any of them.  Cure Wounds is waaay overpowered.  It's fine at first level (1d8+4), but a much too powerful linear growth.  (1d8+4, 3d8+5, 5d8+6, 7d8+7, 9d8+8, 11d8+9, 13d8+10, 15d8+11, 17d8+12).  On top of that, you don't need to be near the target or even touch him.  And it's a swift spell.  We've reached the opposite extreme of what a cleric should be - now they don't even need to take actions to heal the party (though I firmly believe in clerical healing as the only healing outside of natural healing).  That said, with lesser spell memorization slots per day with this new casting system (which I don't care for either) I think it's interesting that Cure Wounds is it's own, single spell.


2.    You will never, ever, ever convince me that classes other than thieves should be able to find and remove traps.  The thief (rogue, if you must) had ONE thing.  Their skills.  By making all of those available to all the classes, he is no longer interesting or unique.  We've played our last four sessions in a massive dungeon crawl without a thief, and not needed one.  The class is neutered to the point that it should simply be relabeled as a 'striker', as that is the role they've assumed since fourth edition.


3.  Combat feats /  Feats in general.  Sometime in the 90's during second edition, this sort of thinking popped up in gaming groups.  "If you don't have a non-weapon proficiency for x, you can't do x".  That's not what non-weapon proficiencies (and now, feats) are meant to represent.  Anyone should be able to charge.  Anyone can light a fire, anyone can bull rush, anyone can try herbalism.  Having a feat / non-weapon proficiency / whatever means you're GOOD at it.     

Good:
1. Hugely happy that martial player damage was nerfed across the board. I hope this means combats are longer and deadlier. Deadly Strike / Multiattack options are great.

2. Druid looks fun, especially the wild shapes. Plenty of options and highly adaptable. However, I worry that the wild shapes won't scale well. I also worry that allowing "passive" magic items to function while wildshaped is unclear. If I can get +1 AC from a ring of protection, does that mean I also get +1 AC from my +1 hide armor? +1 attack and damage from magic weapons?

3. I approve of the Fighter changes, though minor tweaks are still needed (e.g., Death Dealer doesn't really scale well. What's +1d6 damage at level 15?).

Bad:
1. I dislike cleric deities, druid circles, monk paths, paladin oaths, rogue schemes, and ranger favored enemies, and wizard traditions. I want to customize my character along the way. I don't want to be locked into a path. The fighter gets meaningful choices all throughout the first 10 levels. Spellcasters get tons of choices with spell selection. However, the ranger says, "I f*cking hate dragons" at level 1 and then gets locked into a path. The assassin rogue must be a master bluffer rather than having to option for climbing or trap removal mastery.

2. Basic problems from last packet weren't addressed. Cure minor wounds still results in a party full of inflateable clowns (punch them down, they get back up). Disarming and getting knocked prone still too easy to reverse (pick up weapon as free action, standing up costs only 5 movement).  Combat hugging still unaddressed, and ranged attacks in melee and casting in melee are both still allowed without penalty. Skill list is still awful (okay, we lost Use Rope, yay, but Break an Object and Drive are up there?).

3. Post-level 10 is empty and boring. Many of the abilities up there seem unbalanced or lacking. Honestly, just cut them out and leave them for a future update, once we figure out what paragon/epic levels exactly are.
Addendum: Stop front-loading abilities so much. It's bad for multiclassing and it's bad for new players who are still getting used to the rules. Explaining Combat Expertise (from the last packet) to a brand new player still trying to figure out the difference between attack and damage rolls was a nightmare.

4. *BONUS* Exploration is a huge let-down. Takes way too many rolls to resolve anything.

Veggie— just one thing, I think that Break an Object is intended to replace Escape Artist, or at least subsume it. Though it is Str I realize, it does cover breaking restraints. Still don't see a way to wriggle out of restraints instead, but perhaps that's a DM call or just a Dexterity check?

2.    You will never, ever, ever convince me that classes other than thieves should be able to find and remove traps.  The thief (rogue, if you must) had ONE thing.  Their skills.  By making all of those available to all the classes, he is no longer interesting or unique.  We've played our last four sessions in a massive dungeon crawl without a thief, and not needed one.  The class is neutered to the point that it should simply be relabeled as a 'striker', as that is the role they've assumed since fourth edition.




Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about classes other than the Cleric healing? Because the whole reason they are allowing other classes to heal is to remove the Heal-bot requirement of Cleric, while giving cleric and other heals interesting things of their own. It's the same thing with skills. Yeah, that used to be the 'Thief's thing.' But it isn't anymore, and hasn't been for a while, and for good reason. Why not make it so that only fighters can be proficient with swords? Or only clerics can worship a deity? 

I'm even more interesting in your logic behind how that would possibly be good game design. If you have any thoughts, please let me know. Because honestly, the only reason you want it that was is nostalgia.
3. Spell Saves - While not talked about much, I think the fact that most spells now use saves instead of attack rolls is really nice.



I just noticed this same thing when I was reading through the spell list about an hour ago. I really like this change. It helps set apart the magic users a little more and makes them feel different than just a standard fighting attacker.

---

brian ®

Guitars & Gaming


2.    You will never, ever, ever convince me that classes other than thieves should be able to find and remove traps.  The thief (rogue, if you must) had ONE thing.  Their skills.  By making all of those available to all the classes, he is no longer interesting or unique.  We've played our last four sessions in a massive dungeon crawl without a thief, and not needed one.  The class is neutered to the point that it should simply be relabeled as a 'striker', as that is the role they've assumed since fourth edition.




Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about classes other than the Cleric healing? Because the whole reason they are allowing other classes to heal is to remove the Heal-bot requirement of Cleric, while giving cleric and other heals interesting things of their own. It's the same thing with skills. Yeah, that used to be the 'Thief's thing.' But it isn't anymore, and hasn't been for a while, and for good reason. Why not make it so that only fighters can be proficient with swords? Or only clerics can worship a deity? 

I'm even more interesting in your logic behind how that would possibly be good game design. If you have any thoughts, please let me know. Because honestly, the only reason you want it that was is nostalgia.



I won't lie to you, part of it is nostalgia.  But, when you look at the four core classes though the years, you can see that each has it's 'thing'.


Fighter fight:  simple enough, but to the point - they were good at it.  Fighters had the best hit dice, the best attack matrix - and, depending on the edition you're playing, the only ones who got bonuses to hit and damage based on strength (in first and second edition, this was mollified a bit by the other classes only getting bonuses to hit / damage up to +1/+2, where as fighters could go up to +3/+4 or higher.


Clerics heal:  I say heal, because that was a large part of it - but they also had the best utility spells and were good in a pinch in a fight (they had to be: in OD&D you don't get that precious first level spell until 2nd level).   Most importantly, you had to prepare.  No swapping spells, no swift action swap for a cure.  Didn't memorize Cure Disease?  Went into a white dragons lair without Resist Cold?  Out of luck.  The chance for failure on the part of the player has been removed.


Thieves do theifly things:  Pick Pockets, Open Lock, Hide in Shadows, Find / Remove Traps, Climb Walls, Read Languages.  Importantly, they were the only ones who could do these things without wasting precious spell slots.


Magic Users were your glass cannon (this is a good thing):  They are your nuke. You have only a limited number of Magic Missiles, fireballs, lightning bolts, dispel magics, etc per day.  Choose them and use them wisely.        

Each of the classes had a 'thing'.  Now, anyone can take a feat that lets them cast cantrips at will.  Anyone can heal wounds as effectively as a cleric, anyone can find and remove that trap.  The flavor is gone. 


Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the game by any means.  I just see it moving further and further from my vision of the archetypes presented.  Many people seem to forget that 'it's a game', and pc's should be able to lose.  Plot immunity is silly, and when all the characters have the same abilities, why bother playing one over the other.  Bah, my rant is over.    ymmv     

Clerics heal:  I say heal, because that was a large part of it - but they also had the best utility spells and were good in a pinch in a fight (they had to be: in OD&D you don't get that precious first level spell until 2nd level).   Most importantly, you had to prepare.  No swapping spells, no swift action swap for a cure.  Didn't memorize Cure Disease?  Went into a white dragons lair without Resist Cold?  Out of luck.  The chance for failure on the part of the player has been removed.



Cleric's still have to prepare spells, they just get more leniency. The chance for failure is gone? Absolutely and undeniably false. Claims like that make it seem like you're just looking for problems.


Thieves do theifly things:  Pick Pockets, Open Lock, Hide in Shadows, Find / Remove Traps, Climb Walls, Read Languages.  Importantly, they were the only ones who could do these things without wasting precious spell slots.



They are still better at Thiefly things than non-thieves. Plus, you can take the appropriate specialty/background and be far better at it then everyone else. But your issue is that a group no longer needs one class to function? Well you would be in the minority there, because forcing someone in a group to play a class solely because no one else can detect traps is not fun for that person, and therefore poor game design. With the way it is, your Rogue can still be the best, but a group without one can still get by.


Magic Users were your glass cannon (this is a good thing):  They are your nuke. You have only a limited number of Magic Missiles, fireballs, lightning bolts, dispel magics, etc per day.  Choose them and use them wisely.        

 

Implying Magic-User/Wizard/Mage was only ever good at damage spells. Hah!


Now, anyone can take a feat that lets them cast cantrips at will. 


So don't allow cantrips. They've said that will absolutely be an option. Problem solved. I, for one, love at-will spells, and so do others, so they aren't going away. This way, though, we can both play the game we want.

Anyone can heal wounds as effectively as a cleric


False. I don't even know where you got that from.  


The flavor is gone. 


That's... idiotic to suggest. I love the flavor. Perhaps you don't, but that doesn't mean it's gone.

Loved:

1.  Races overhaul.  Humans are still the best but it's closer now.

2.  The new classes have some great ideas.  Unlike an above poster, I like the "themes" for classes.  It keeps min/maxing down at the expense of niche character options.  Sometimes less modularity is ok.

3.  The cure/inflict spells are the first ones to actually be better at higher levels.  More spells should be this way.


Disloved:

1.  The core four classes still need the most help.  The new "disadvantage for sneak attack" rogue schtick just feels weird.  The cleric and wizard need more current-level spells and far fewer dinky spells.

2.  Wizard.  Yeah, it's so bad I sad it twice.  The class and the low-level spells have been a mess since the first playtest.

3.  Lots of small problems that keep getting overlooked + a few big problems that persist + wow, has it been 10 months already? = ennui.  I said this in another thread, but this feels like about the 3rd actual playtest.  We wasted months on bad ideas that were obvious and shouldn't have been thrown out there.  Until the core four classes are fixed, it's hard to be enthusiastic about actually playtesting the game.  Getting tired of the slow pace.

What I like:
1. Feels like D&D.
2. Advantage and Disadvantage - one of the things I really liked in the first packet and it is still part of 5e.
3. Combat is still acceptably quick (going in the wrong direction, but still good enough).

What needs work:
1. Combat is starting to slow down (I have played far too many 3 hour combats in the past and I don't want to see this return to the game).
2. Rogue sneak attack - too complicated and was better in the last packet.  I thought it was a nice touch that they could trade advantage for more damage, but that they always got more damage when working to sneak up on the opponent as a base ability.  Yes getting advantage can be hard, but it is what makes playing a rogue fun (as an aside faerie fire + rogue is too good:  I think Faerie fire needs a buff, so that it can be moved to a 1st level spell, which would keep the druid from casting it every round).
3. Wizards, Fighters, Thieves, Clerics oh my.... I would like to see the classic classes attract the most players to them, by being shiny and right now they are being overshadowed.  IMHO: Wizards need help, Barbarians > Fighters, Monks > Rogues, and Druids > Clerics.


Clerics heal:  I say heal, because that was a large part of it - but they also had the best utility spells and were good in a pinch in a fight (they had to be: in OD&D you don't get that precious first level spell until 2nd level).   Most importantly, you had to prepare.  No swapping spells, no swift action swap for a cure.  Didn't memorize Cure Disease?  Went into a white dragons lair without Resist Cold?  Out of luck.  The chance for failure on the part of the player has been removed.



Cleric's still have to prepare spells, they just get more leniency. The chance for failure is gone? Absolutely and undeniably false. Claims like that make it seem like you're just looking for problems.


Thieves do theifly things:  Pick Pockets, Open Lock, Hide in Shadows, Find / Remove Traps, Climb Walls, Read Languages.  Importantly, they were the only ones who could do these things without wasting precious spell slots.



They are still better at Thiefly things than non-thieves. Plus, you can take the appropriate specialty/background and be far better at it then everyone else. But your issue is that a group no longer needs one class to function? Well you would be in the minority there, because forcing someone in a group to play a class solely because no one else can detect traps is not fun for that person, and therefore poor game design. With the way it is, your Rogue can still be the best, but a group without one can still get by.


Magic Users were your glass cannon (this is a good thing):  They are your nuke. You have only a limited number of Magic Missiles, fireballs, lightning bolts, dispel magics, etc per day.  Choose them and use them wisely.        

 

Implying Magic-User/Wizard/Mage was only ever good at damage spells. Hah!


Now, anyone can take a feat that lets them cast cantrips at will. 


So don't allow cantrips. They've said that will absolutely be an option. Problem solved. I, for one, love at-will spells, and so do others, so they aren't going away. This way, though, we can both play the game we want.

Anyone can heal wounds as effectively as a cleric


False. I don't even know where you got that from.  


The flavor is gone. 


That's... idiotic to suggest. I love the flavor. Perhaps you don't, but that doesn't mean it's gone.




I disagree on one point with this reply. I don't see it as a bad thing that a certain class would be required to do a challenging task that others have no training for. I'd say that anyone could indeed try trapfinding/disarming but with hefty penalties. If everyone should be able to do everything, then why not just have a group of gishes since melee characters should be able to do what magic-users et al. do? I get it that no one wants to be forced to play a class but I wouldn't mind it if the group actually _needed_ my class instead of my character being nice to have around in a general sense. My main gripe with 4e was that it really didn't seem like it mattered who played what (even though the specified roles led us to believe that) and I really want Next to force the group to combine their skills instead of everyone being jacks-of-all-trade.

Having said that, I like the new packet so far, although I haven't had the chance to roll up a character from every class yet.

But hey guys, please don't go around calling each other idiots. We're supposed to be discussing a game here and games are made for the sole purpose of having fun. Let's keep the discussion fruitful (and by extension fun), okay?

Clerics heal:  I say heal, because that was a large part of it - but they also had the best utility spells and were good in a pinch in a fight (they had to be: in OD&D you don't get that precious first level spell until 2nd level).   Most importantly, you had to prepare.  No swapping spells, no swift action swap for a cure.  Didn't memorize Cure Disease?  Went into a white dragons lair without Resist Cold?  Out of luck.  The chance for failure on the part of the player has been removed.



Cleric's still have to prepare spells, they just get more leniency. The chance for failure is gone? Absolutely and undeniably false. Claims like that make it seem like you're just looking for problems.


Thieves do theifly things:  Pick Pockets, Open Lock, Hide in Shadows, Find / Remove Traps, Climb Walls, Read Languages.  Importantly, they were the only ones who could do these things without wasting precious spell slots.



They are still better at Thiefly things than non-thieves. Plus, you can take the appropriate specialty/background and be far better at it then everyone else. But your issue is that a group no longer needs one class to function? Well you would be in the minority there, because forcing someone in a group to play a class solely because no one else can detect traps is not fun for that person, and therefore poor game design. With the way it is, your Rogue can still be the best, but a group without one can still get by.


Magic Users were your glass cannon (this is a good thing):  They are your nuke. You have only a limited number of Magic Missiles, fireballs, lightning bolts, dispel magics, etc per day.  Choose them and use them wisely.        

 

Implying Magic-User/Wizard/Mage was only ever good at damage spells. Hah!


Now, anyone can take a feat that lets them cast cantrips at will. 


So don't allow cantrips. They've said that will absolutely be an option. Problem solved. I, for one, love at-will spells, and so do others, so they aren't going away. This way, though, we can both play the game we want.

Anyone can heal wounds as effectively as a cleric


False. I don't even know where you got that from.  


The flavor is gone. 


That's... idiotic to suggest. I love the flavor. Perhaps you don't, but that doesn't mean it's gone.




I absolutely believe that you should have a thief to find traps or a cleric to heal.  The whole core concepts of the classes have been removed. 

I most certainly don't think of wizards as damage only.  Nuke may not be the best choice of words, but it fits... more Ace in the Hole.  Whether that is by damage (as the only class who can drop a 10d6 fireball) or dispel magic, or fly, or phantasmal force or any number of other spells.  The point is, they can do things that other classes cannot.

As for cantrips, how about we don't allow them, and you can house rule them in to your game.  If this is the core, we shouldn't be force to house rule things out.


And, sorry, my idiotic suggestion that the flavor is gone was most definitely my opinion.  Flavor won't be the same for everyone.  So it's gone - for me.       

I absolutely believe that you should have a thief to find traps or a cleric to heal.  The whole core concepts of the classes have been removed.

 
Well, that's not the way it is anymore, and given that it hasn't been for a long time, and Next shows no signs of going back to it, I have to assume me and those I play with are in the majority.

As for cantrips, how about we don't allow them, and you can house rule them in to your game.  If this is the core, we shouldn't be force to house rule things out.


Perhaps you don't understand one of the core concepts of D&DNext Design: modularity. There's a big difference between having to houserule something and just using certain modules. It has to be in the core game, so that if two people sit at a table, one can have cantrips and one can't. If the DM doesn't  want them, then he tells the players he isn't using that module: done. But because this is player specific (i.e. my use of cantrips doesn't affect your character) then it should be allowed by default and easily removed according to either player or DM wishes.

I disagree on one point with this reply. I don't see it as a bad thing that a certain class would be required to do a challenging task that others have no training for. I'd say that anyone could indeed try trapfinding/disarming but with hefty penalties. If everyone should be able to do everything, then why not just have a group of gishes since melee characters should be able to do what magic-users et al. do? I get it that no one wants to be forced to play a class but I wouldn't mind it if the group actually _needed_ my class instead of my character being nice to have around in a general sense. My main gripe with 4e was that it really didn't seem like it mattered who played what (even though the specified roles led us to believe that) and I really want Next to force the group to combine their skills instead of everyone being jacks-of-all-trade.

Having said that, I like the new packet so far, although I haven't had the chance to roll up a character from every class yet.

But hey guys, please don't go around calling each other idiots. We're supposed to be discussing a game here and games are made for the sole purpose of having fun. Let's keep the discussion fruitful (and by extension fun), okay?



I'm sorry you've had that experience with 4e. If anything, my group has found 4e makes them feel their character is even more needed because of the roles. But to each his own.

While I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree that a character should feel needed, I couldn't disagree more that a class should be needed. You can also simulate a class feeling needed by just making certain classes better at things than others (see: clerics make the best healers) but without limiting that ability to only that class (but I guess this Druid will do)

And there are plenty of ways to make your character feel needed in every edition without forcing the group to bring that class. 

I absolutely believe that you should have a thief to find traps or a cleric to heal.  The whole core concepts of the classes have been removed.

 
Well, that's not the way it is anymore, and given that it hasn't been for a long time, and Next shows no signs of going back to it, I have to assume me and those I play with are in the majority.

As for cantrips, how about we don't allow them, and you can house rule them in to your game.  If this is the core, we shouldn't be force to house rule things out.


Perhaps you don't understand one of the core concepts of D&DNext Design: modularity. There's a big difference between having to houserule something and just using certain modules. It has to be in the core game, so that if two people sit at a table, one can have cantrips and one can't. If the DM doesn't  want them, then he tells the players he isn't using that module: done. But because this is player specific (i.e. my use of cantrips doesn't affect your character) then it should be allowed by default and easily removed according to either player or DM wishes.



Well, D&D has been around since '74, and the idea of not needing a class has been around since fourth edition ('08?).  Which one sounds like it's been in use longer?


And modularity is things added to a base, core concept.  The addition of options is the thing, not removal of your core items.


Well, D&D has been around since '74, and the idea of not needing a class has been around since fourth edition ('08?).  Which one sounds like it's been in use longer?


And modularity is things added to a base, core concept.  The addition of options is the thing, not removal of your core items.



There was no one class necessary in 3e, and since that's when WotC took over, and they haven't changed it since...

But fine, go for it, keep complaining about something that isn't coming back. What would be great is if you could provide any actualreasons why forcing my group toplay certain classes instead ofwhat we want to play is good game design.


Well, D&D has been around since '74, and the idea of not needing a class has been around since fourth edition ('08?).  Which one sounds like it's been in use longer?


And modularity is things added to a base, core concept.  The addition of options is the thing, not removal of your core items.



There was no one class necessary in 3e, and since that's when WotC took over, and they haven't changed it since...

But fine, go for it, keep complaining about something that isn't coming back. What would be great is if you could provide any actualreasons why forcing my group toplay certain classes instead ofwhat we want to play is good game design.



There's no need to be condescending here. And, for the record, the vast majority of d&d players started playing during 3rd edition or sooner. And classes had an identity and certain ones were, more or less, necessary. If the classes don't have that identity, what the hell are they even in the game for? And if they're not, and it's just a straight-up point buy, why the hell don't we just play GURPS?


There's no need to be condescending here. And, for the record, the vast majority of d&d players started playing during 3rd edition or sooner. And classes had an identity and certain ones were, more or less, necessary. If the classes don't have that identity, what the hell are they even in the game for? And if they're not, and it's just a straight-up point buy, why the hell don't we just play GURPS?




identity != necessary

There's no need to be condescending here. And, for the record, the vast majority of d&d players started playing during 3rd edition or sooner. And classes had an identity and certain ones were, more or less, necessary. If the classes don't have that identity, what the hell are they even in the game for? And if they're not, and it's just a straight-up point buy, why the hell don't we just play GURPS?




identity != necessary



That's right, but characters from other classes being able to do the same thing that's at the core of your class, your archetype, your role means that your class has no identity. It's not unique. Now, if you're the only one who can do it RIGHT, or if you just do it SO much better, that's something. That's a compromise. But, as-is, some of these classes (Rogue) have been robbed of an identity.

Ah finished reading. Fantastic, it started off really strong, then these two guys kept going back in forth, it seemed like at first it was alright but after a while it didn't seem like they could see eye to eye but wanted to keep on trying anyways. I thought they both had valuable input too. I'm really hoping more people put up there three and three those were great reads at the beginning, I was really hoping I could combine all the lists and repost, but that may be a lost dream. I'm glad I contributed to all this. Maybe I should put in mine, don't quote me as the most-est of anything for these like the best or most interesting, just things I saw in my read. I realize the following are very muddled, just pick out the important parts.

Good (I noticed things)

1. Race abilities scores seemed to shift a bit by adding one for default race and altering the sub race if need be. Humans taken down a peg which is alright I guess, I'm not sure if I should feel bad, I miss the extra bonus. Back in the second playtest packet I got (which might have been the third overall, it was the warlock and sorcerer one). I created a neat chart of all point allocation for class and race and it took a week. The humans just have their own section at the top since they end up with better scores in specific area or the option to spread them out more evenly, it’s interesting. I should mention that the race I play most commonly is human, I just connect to them I suppose.

2. The skills also seemed to shift, as I haven’t playtested anything I can only suppose from what I suppose. The Task being tied to an ability was something I thought they were trying to stay away from err well skill tying not task tying each task has a clear winner that table is more skills why do they label it so? The abilities showing up do not seem evenly spread, I’m glad there isn’t just a one off constitution endure one. Dice vs. Additional Skills is a great choice they added in. I’m not entirely sure I’m set in these ways on skills but I like the jumble mixed up it is now.

Fine (I didn’t have any moments of real clarity when I glanced through them)

1. Background (Is guide something new? Pretty standard affair here, no problems.)

2. Equipment (Thought I saw some exotic weapons like Katanas. Was weired out by the lack of separation within Martial, but only initially. It just seems odd to know how to use all of those with martial proficiency; do they still have types like hammers and swords?)

3. Specialties (Thought of Deathstroke of DC while reading.)

4. Feats (Looked At Two Weapons)

5. Magic Items (Seems to be about the same, looked at Vecna’s tomb there, interesting.)

Bad (I noticed lack of change)

1. I don’t mind that monks exist, but without more integration of eastern ideals, philosophies, technologies, manners of dress, and the like I seem them as outrageously out of place in a setting populated by very western concepts. Don’t get me wrong I love me some druid class action here but it wouldn’t gel in eastern society for something like that to exist on its own it would have been incorporated by other classes. I just don’t like monks here for the sake of their very eastern presence in an otherwise non-eastern game, I can’t get over it. Sorry.

2. I will have to be won over by what I would like to call half classes still. They seem like they are just alternative expressions of classes we already have. I have felt that you could either write them as a sub class of the main big four core classes or just combine aspects of some of them to create them. I felt Rangers were covered under Fighters, as well as barbarians covered there. Rangers could also come from Rogues and elements of Druids. It’s weird to describe Paladins as melee heavy versions of Clerics with Fighter Aspects. I just have always felt that if they aren’t made unique enough mechanically they are just re-flavored with a few mechanics (not unique enough) for standing alone. I don’t know if others quite feel my gist here. I am okay with them here for now I guess but Monks, Rangers, Barbarians, Druids, and Paladins always feel a bit off for it. Now don’t get rid of them though, they should be there, just make sure they stand out and are toe-to-toe with the others. I even like a few myself, so sue me for having conflicted natures.

3. Alignment restrictions or lack thereof. I’m in the camp of an all or nothing right now, although I’m a fan of the 4th Ed Alignment scale anyways.

It’s All MEH Anyways! (remember that)

AD&D 1st Edition Character (Simplified)

BIOGRAPHY
Name: Brother Michael
Adventuring Class: Cleric
Adventuring Experience: 1446 out of 1501
Bonus Experience: 10%
Languages Known: Common, Orc, Elven.
Alignment: Lawful/Neutral Good
ABILITY SCORES
Strength: 10
Dexterity: 10
Intelligence: 11
Charisma: 11
Constitution: 14
Wisdom: 16
WEAPONS: HIT; MEDIUM; LARGE
Footman’s Flail: 1d20; 1d6+1; 1d4
Hammer (Thrown): 1d20; 1d4+1; 1d4
Sling: 1d20-3; 1d4+1; 1d6+1
MAGIC
Today’s Prepared Spells: Cure Light Wounds x2, Command x1
Spells Spent: Cure Light Wounds x1
Other Cleric Abilities: Turn Undead
Spell Failure: 0%
Magical Attack Adjustment: +2
DEFENSES
Armor: 5 (-4 Armor, -1 Shield)
Maximum Health: 10
Current Health: 9
CONSUMABLE ITEMS
Water Skin
7 Days of Trail Rations
7 Pints (Flasks) of Oil
1 Ounce (Vial) of Holy Water
4 Parchments
12 Sling Bullets
6 Pieces of Silver
8 Pieces of Twine

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...
I'm going to suppose that if I took longer to look at these classes I would feel more love, but with no group to playtest with I can just only feel bitter I guess, Sigh. Don't let my opinion hurt you in any way. Really selling me on the new classes though. Favored Enemy is from Fourth Though, from my memory.
 

AD&D 1st Edition Character (Simplified)

BIOGRAPHY
Name: Brother Michael
Adventuring Class: Cleric
Adventuring Experience: 1446 out of 1501
Bonus Experience: 10%
Languages Known: Common, Orc, Elven.
Alignment: Lawful/Neutral Good
ABILITY SCORES
Strength: 10
Dexterity: 10
Intelligence: 11
Charisma: 11
Constitution: 14
Wisdom: 16
WEAPONS: HIT; MEDIUM; LARGE
Footman’s Flail: 1d20; 1d6+1; 1d4
Hammer (Thrown): 1d20; 1d4+1; 1d4
Sling: 1d20-3; 1d4+1; 1d6+1
MAGIC
Today’s Prepared Spells: Cure Light Wounds x2, Command x1
Spells Spent: Cure Light Wounds x1
Other Cleric Abilities: Turn Undead
Spell Failure: 0%
Magical Attack Adjustment: +2
DEFENSES
Armor: 5 (-4 Armor, -1 Shield)
Maximum Health: 10
Current Health: 9
CONSUMABLE ITEMS
Water Skin
7 Days of Trail Rations
7 Pints (Flasks) of Oil
1 Ounce (Vial) of Holy Water
4 Parchments
12 Sling Bullets
6 Pieces of Silver
8 Pieces of Twine

As far as spell saves go, I think DEX, WIS, and CON are used pretty extensively. STR has a few rolls, but not enough. INT and CHA are the bastard stepchildren though, and if more spells and monster abilities used them as saves they'd be less dumpy. I really don't want to have to wait for psionics before INT becomes widespread, and CHA needs more non-social applications.

paladins use charisma for spellcasting, all saving throws, boosting ally's saving throws, and using Diplomacy.

also, why would psionics use INT? (i don't know if they use INT in the past, but that wouldn't make it a good idea now)

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

also, why would psionics use INT? (i don't know if they use INT in the past, but that wouldn't make it a good idea now)



There were 4 Psionic Classes
Psion used Int
Warrior used Wis
Wilder used Cha
Soulknife could choose which of the 3
Good:
1. I like the way the ranger's favored enemy works now. It just makes more sense that if you focus on certain enemies, you build entire tactics around them, and they can be useful in more situations than "I am now fighting a goblin and get +2 to attack and damage."

2. Being able to choose a new skill or an increase in skill die. The choice of getting better at what you already do or broadening your horizons is absolutely wonderful.

3. Being able to two weapon fight without needing a feat to make it practical. I am so very happy about not needing a high dex score and a feat to be able to swing two weapons and be able to actually hit something. I'm quite happy the penalties were dropped and it's feasible to start out at level 1 dual wielding.

Bonus: I like being able to take a feat to disarm traps and open locks. I never liked the idea of a class being nearly required for a group, and while it does take a precious resource to be able to do what a rogue can automatically - at least there is the option for it.


Bad:
1. I greatly dislike that skills have been attached to stats. I really like the idea of being able to intimidate with strength, to use logic (int check) for persuasion, etc. It's not really that big of a deal, I suppose, because it's very easy to make a house rule for it, but I still feel like it's a step back from the openness of before.

2. Monks lost their flurry of blows. To me, this is a cornerstone of the class akin to a paladin's lay on hands or a druid's wildshape. I can understand needing to balance the numbers, and I do know that fleshing out the classes is still ongoing, but monks need their flurry and there is a part of me that is nervous that all they'll get is unarmed TWF.

3. While I am happy that paladins are expanded beyond Lawful Good, I dislike that the Oaths in the class define what Channel Divinities one gets. I would rather the Divinities be chosen by the player instead.
+1 to all is still too good.


Because of optimization, when having +1 all, only the primary and secondary abilities really matter. The third is notable, but the remaining abilities are nice but not so powerful.

+1 all is great for multiclassing, but this requires lowering the primary. For me, +1 all is debatable for flavor reasons, but mechanically, it seems fine.

+1 to peripheral abilities helps versatility of a Human, so seems to balance with nonhuman races who trade versatility for specific traits.


Good
1) I love the Druid and the standard wild shape. I think it's a really nice class and well balanced with the martial classes. However see bad 1 and 2.

2) They finally have a non broken two weapon fighting system that doesn't require a degree in mike mearls interpretation. Short precise and with no ambigous words.

3) The class feature feats are awesome. It's a good 4e style multiclassing for a few classes. I can now make a super charismatic fighter or a lockpicking wizard and I like that A lot! Nothing is more boring than being locked in to a pre fixed archetype decided by some game designer some where IMO.

BAD
1) circle of the moon. Oh no.... Here comes DoDzilla! I await to see the result of peoples actual play test of this, as it is banned from my table instantly.

2) Druid has full spell casting progression and gains fun character definining upgrades as they rise in level. The wizards right column STILL looks like this:
-spellcasting, school specialisation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
hope you get my point. Why would my wizard player want to swap from pathfinder to this? The spells they get aren't even any different, they are all just straight copies from 3.5. ALL other classes has new innovative fun ways of interacting with the game, the wizard is still stuck with a 15 year old system. I'm not saying they are underpowered, just not new and exciting.

3) The rogues sneak attack is tied in with the advantage disadvantage system...why? Use the current system but instead of granting advantage just let it grant sneak attack that doesn't in turn grant disadvantage. Then the rogue is on a level playing field with everyone else when it comes to searching for advantage, and they don't have to "take a penalty" to be able to use their class feature. It strikes me as odd that the precision striker is less accurate than the raging barbarian. Balance wise it doesn't change anything at all...it's just a way to perceive being rewarded rather than punished.

Clerics heal:  I say heal, because that was a large part of it - but they also had the best utility spells and were good in a pinch in a fight (they had to be: in OD&D you don't get that precious first level spell until 2nd level).   Most importantly, you had to prepare.  No swapping spells, no swift action swap for a cure.  Didn't memorize Cure Disease?  Went into a white dragons lair without Resist Cold?  Out of luck.  The chance for failure on the part of the player has been removed.



Cleric's still have to prepare spells, they just get more leniency. The chance for failure is gone? Absolutely and undeniably false. Claims like that make it seem like you're just looking for problems.


Thieves do theifly things:  Pick Pockets, Open Lock, Hide in Shadows, Find / Remove Traps, Climb Walls, Read Languages.  Importantly, they were the only ones who could do these things without wasting precious spell slots.



They are still better at Thiefly things than non-thieves. Plus, you can take the appropriate specialty/background and be far better at it then everyone else. But your issue is that a group no longer needs one class to function? Well you would be in the minority there, because forcing someone in a group to play a class solely because no one else can detect traps is not fun for that person, and therefore poor game design. With the way it is, your Rogue can still be the best, but a group without one can still get by.


Magic Users were your glass cannon (this is a good thing):  They are your nuke. You have only a limited number of Magic Missiles, fireballs, lightning bolts, dispel magics, etc per day.  Choose them and use them wisely.        

 

Implying Magic-User/Wizard/Mage was only ever good at damage spells. Hah!


Now, anyone can take a feat that lets them cast cantrips at will. 


So don't allow cantrips. They've said that will absolutely be an option. Problem solved. I, for one, love at-will spells, and so do others, so they aren't going away. This way, though, we can both play the game we want.

Anyone can heal wounds as effectively as a cleric


False. I don't even know where you got that from.  


The flavor is gone. 


That's... idiotic to suggest. I love the flavor. Perhaps you don't, but that doesn't mean it's gone.




I absolutely believe that you should have a thief to find traps or a cleric to heal.  The whole core concepts of the classes have been removed. 

I most certainly don't think of wizards as damage only.  Nuke may not be the best choice of words, but it fits... more Ace in the Hole.  Whether that is by damage (as the only class who can drop a 10d6 fireball) or dispel magic, or fly, or phantasmal force or any number of other spells.  The point is, they can do things that other classes cannot.

As for cantrips, how about we don't allow them, and you can house rule them in to your game.  If this is the core, we shouldn't be force to house rule things out.


And, sorry, my idiotic suggestion that the flavor is gone was most definitely my opinion.  Flavor won't be the same for everyone.  So it's gone - for me.       



I don't object to other classes having access to certain thieves' abilities - they do require feats after all so it's a good way to emulate multi-class light and other classes weill struggle to afford more than a couple of abilities.  Certain schemes are better at the thief stuff than others and it's nice to see that even rogues will need to spend feats to become expert at all 2e thief abilities.  My concerns are that some thief abilities such as open locks and disarm traps have no comparable skill so nobody can become an expert while pick pockets as an opposed check is almost guranteed to succeed because monsters don't get skill dice.

I'm a huge fan of classes other than clerics getting healing.  However, they should all be far weaker than clerics in this regard.

Don't remove cantrips completely!  Just remove the combat ones although my own view is that you should give wizards a magic missile with an attack roll that does 1d4+1 and ignores cover if you want to avoid your wizard whipping out a crossbowe every 5 minutes.  Mage hand is invaluable to giving wizards some interesting non-combat stuff to do and read magic is a must - it was soooo boring in previous editions to have to wait 8 hours and waste a slot on translating books and scrolls.  Also note that the Arcane Dabbler feat gives very limited access to cantrips - it's not a bad list to keep as default for all wizards if cantrips give you concerns.

I haven't playtested yet but my good:

1. Rogues Attack rolls and sneak attack feature look more balanced and interesting interesting.

2. Skill die and advancement looks interesting.

3. Damage is looking a bit more balanced.


My bad:

1. Skills - new list is annoying, give players the option to petition for aother abilities where appropriate.

2. Options - bring back packages for guidance with optional choices when you level up and give fighters ways to enhance the martial feats using expertise dice.

3. Too many glaring errors that were ignored (boring humans, low monster AC, HD+Con bonus hp every level, belts of giant strength).

Sign In to post comments