My Feedback, now 3 sessions played

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
1. 1st and 2nd level PCs are weaker defensively than I would like.  We're just getting pummelled.  I'd like extra hit dice and hit points.
2. The human mechanic, just +1 to all attributes is mega lame.
3. The fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue all seemed to contribute in combat.
4a. some of the organization is poor: divided the skill information between the skill and how-to-play
4b. necessary information for grapple/restrain appears in two parts of the how-to-play section.
4c. An 'expertise' class feature and a totally unrelated set of 'expertise faets' 
4d. skill mastery: 'historic lore' in rogue class, when historic lore no longer exists as skill
5. Turn Undead should be a penalty to the undead, not running away, which can be a negative for the players.
6. Leather armor should not be in the rogue's starting package given that nearly every rogue will be better off with studded leather.  studded will be 10+3+2, where leather will be 10+1+3 at 16 or 17 dex.
7. break an object, handle animal, drive and ride are too niche to be skills.  'first aid' sounds too modern and seems to preclude knowledge of long-term care.

8. Also, just in case I can rouse others to agree with me: get rid of seeing-in-the dark, monks don't belong in the player's handbook, warlord class as primary healer, 

 
I don't get why people hate on the monk. If you don't want it in your game, then the DM can say 'No monks allowed'. simple as that. I personally like the monk. D&D is just trying to please the general audience.

Also, I pray that they give us the Warlord class! Easily my fav class. Gotta say i don't think the warlord NEEDS to be prim healer. different builds that make us all happy. A build that likes to heal a lot, a build that manipulates combat, and a build some where in between.
There is a primary healer already in the book:

Lifegiver or Light Bringer Cleric sets.  Both of these come with the Restore Health channel divinity to give extra healing, along with still being able to have cure wounds memorized every day.

Remember that one of the primary goals of D&D Next is to simplify the system, and reducing the number of classes is a big part of that.  Most of the deeply classic classes will be represented (which is a big part why monk still exists in the game) and some of the more modern classes along with prestige classes will be tied into the class job selections or feats. 

Our group has also noticed a fairly binary survival rate at levels 1-3, as most monsters still have around a +5 to hit and often do 1d8-12 damage at times.  This possible high damage output can often one shot most of the non-martial classes and even the martial classes are very subject to double teaming to be dropped.  It has really led to alot of low level munchkining to maximize armor class (i'm looking at you mountain dwarf and two weapon defense)

 Our group combined Drive and Ride into one skill as they are so close that both that two skills is more redundant than would be to just have another classic skill such has use ropes.  I also question the concept of Break Object being a skill... how does one get trained in breaking objects in a world that does not call for controlled demolition?  Isn't it just HULK SMASH?

I do agree that turn undead should be a debuff not only to reduce issues with melee characters chasing enemies but also that the current wording  for turn undead makes it worthless in nearly every situation.  Specifically,  it is only useful for dealing with large packs of extremely low level undead, and only then when the player is at a level where the undead should be laughable for the party.  The ability to outright destroy undead with the skill is only possible at level 5 when double your level (10) is enough hp to destroy a zombie.  Up to that point they essentially just scatter like gazelle, and considering that they have movment of 20ft, they spend their entire turn running, so 40 ft, which is beyond the range of melee to persue and attack in the same turn.  They will also run for a full minute, or 10 rounds, or up to 400 ft away, god I hope they don't run into more enemies, or out of the graveyard and into the town itself!
Turn undead is an emergency 'get away' button, or a 'I shouldn't have to bother with you' button at higher levels.  It's not something you should always do, or even do first if you can otherwise handle the undead.  It's the cross against a vampire trick, not an 'I win' button.

That being said, I could see a modification to turn undead that makes it so they can't come within 20 feet of the cleric but are otherwise unaffected.  This could let the cleric herd the undead or stay back and let the fighters fight them while protecting the squishies in the back.  In this case the turn undead should require an action to keep going each round the cleric wishes to keep up the turning.  This would mean the cleric would be 'busy' keeping the undead back with his holy symbol held high, and not able to cast other spells while doing so.

I could even see turn undead being removed from channel divinity completely, and have it be a charisma contest with the undead to keep them at bay usable at will, but requiring an action.  This is more in line with 1st edition.
I just downloaded the latest installment of D&D Next and I am looking for players to really sit down and go for some gaming! That being said, I am taken aback by a few things that just stood out to me from the get-go.

1) I thought that this system was leaning more toward being "less rules heavy and complex". Thus far, the system still seems pretty complex though the character sheet is far more toward my liking at this point.

2) I have not yet had the privelege of reading through, and then applying what I have read. However, it is a great deal different in many respects to AD&D2E (No edition wars implied here). Just saying that AD&D2E was where I cut my teeth on role-playing games. What drew me toward at least trying D&D Next was the "promise" that it would be able to incorporate previous editions somehow... I am just not seeing that thus far. Which, was the selling point for me to even want to try it out.

I do not frequent these message boards often at all, but will try to return to see what others post, and to post whatever I find out and learn about this new system as time goes on.

I just downloaded the latest installment of D&D Next and I am looking for players to really sit down and go for some gaming! That being said, I am taken aback by a few things that just stood out to me from the get-go.

1) I thought that this system was leaning more toward being "less rules heavy and complex". Thus far, the system still seems pretty complex though the character sheet is far more toward my liking at this point.

2) I have not yet had the privelege of reading through, and then applying what I have read. However, it is a great deal different in many respects to AD&D2E (No edition wars implied here). Just saying that AD&D2E was where I cut my teeth on role-playing games. What drew me toward at least trying D&D Next was the "promise" that it would be able to incorporate previous editions somehow... I am just not seeing that thus far. Which, was the selling point for me to even want to try it out.

I do not frequent these message boards often at all, but will try to return to see what others post, and to post whatever I find out and learn about this new system as time goes on.

In play, there are very few rules. Last Saturday, in my online (RPGTO) session, I introduced a new player who had never played D&D before to his PC. Even though it was an 8th level ranger (with more abilities and spells than a 1st level PC), we were able to spend 10 minutes preparing him and he played like a champ. Most of the core is intuitive and easy to run.

A Brave Knight of WTF

I really agree wholeheartedly with a lot of this.

+1: PCs need options for higher starting ACs. We were 4th level characters in our playtest and most were stuck with 14s. Yeek!

+1: Humans need better racial abilities and the +1 to everything needs to go away--it doesn't set up humans as versatile so much as just better across the board (while this makes the pro-humanist in me smile, I don't think it accurately portrays humans in the game).

+1: The skill list needs to be fleshed out with more flavorful skills, as is they are pretty dry and uninteresting. More skills should be grouped together into related groups. Athletics, Acrobatics, Insight and Perception were all so much more powerful and useful and are deeply missed. We really don't need Break an Object as it's own thing. Very true for many of the skills. Better names would help a lot too: I liked Forbidden Lore much more than Recall Lore: Forbidden. First Aid really is too modern sounding too.

That said I really like having monks. I'd like warlords too--but probably as the equivalent of a Rogue Trick for a Fighter. Every class should have Rogue Tricks. They are one of the best things about this playtest.

Seeing in the dark is fine, if you're a mountain dwarf, drow, goblin or svirfneblin. Otherwise bring a torch or chug a darkvision potion buddy.
Now with 100% more Vorthos!
Break Object needs to go away, yes. A simple Strength ability check will suffice.

Handle Animal should be able to handily envelop the functions of drive and ride. Really, if you can ride an animal you can certainly handle it, and how many animal handlers can't ride? Driving, in a medieval setting, is literally handling an animal. Sure, there are a few minor differences due to managing the vehicle, but the two are so closely related it certainly doesn't need its own separate skill.

I agree "first aid" isn't the most appropriate. I would prefer the skill be called Healing.

2.1 Just occured to me, the additional skill option, available at 7th, 12th & 17th level should be restricted by class.  I don't think it's wise to allow every character at level 7 to take the most useful skill(s), in my game that would be either spot or persuade.

2.2 Having now seen  the half elf, orc and gnome, I'd totally rewrite the race-mechanics.  The half orc getting +2 to strength is and admission that giving elves +1 dex (etc...) and humans +1 dex doesn't emphasize the notion of elfy dextrousness, it in fact negates it.

2.x what percentage of people want gnomes in the player's handbook?   
+1: PCs need options for higher starting ACs. We were 4th level characters in our playtest and most were stuck with 14s. Yeek!



Yea I don't think you understand how this system works like at all. Almost every enemy at your level has less AC than you and around +3-4 atk.  This edition is not about super bloated numbers and hopfully will continue to keep numbers low.

Also starting HP is fine. 4e crashed and burned so quit trying to pick pieces of its mangled corpse up from the ground and attach them to Next.
Also starting HP is fine. 4e crashed and burned so quit trying to pick pieces of its mangled corpse up from the ground and attach them to Next.



I don't think the OP was wanting to start this .. edition thingy when he requested having more than 4 hp at level 1 would be nice.
Turn undead is an emergency 'get away' button, or a 'I shouldn't have to bother with you' button at higher levels.  It's not something you should always do, or even do first if you can otherwise handle the undead.  It's the cross against a vampire trick, not an 'I win' button.

That being said, I could see a modification to turn undead that makes it so they can't come within 20 feet of the cleric but are otherwise unaffected.  This could let the cleric herd the undead or stay back and let the fighters fight them while protecting the squishies in the back.  In this case the turn undead should require an action to keep going each round the cleric wishes to keep up the turning.  This would mean the cleric would be 'busy' keeping the undead back with his holy symbol held high, and not able to cast other spells while doing so.



I agree with these two points, but mostly with the second one. I am currently running a Cleric, and find Turn Undead to be entirely useless at level 6. Having it act more like a "force field" that takes up consecutive turns to maintain would, in my opinion be a great fix to make it more worthwhile.
I'm seeing a lot of reasons why I don't play Pathfinder in the playset.  Mainly arbitrary prerequisites for feats.  I don't see why any of the feats should require level 9.  They took out Weapon Focus because they considered it a feat tax, but now you need a feat in order to charge!

I can't think of a single melee class that wouldn't take Charge or Spring Attack.  It's especially mandatory for the Barbarian unless you carry a supply of pebbles to use as improvised ranged attacks to keep your rage from turning off.

The new trimmed down Humans can't compare to any other races when making Fighters or Barbarians.  They get +1 to 3 useful stats, and +1 to 3 dump stats.

A Half Orc gets +3 to 2 useful stas, Darkvision, a bonus to Intimidate, and an extra language.

Where are the Warlords and Dragonborn?