Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

The New playtest and your thoughts.


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

1 to 50 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Alright haven't gone through all of it yet but just looking at the fighter I went feeling great more attack attack attack to actually feeling like your choices will matter. For those who havent read over it yet a quick synopis would be that fighters now have a pool of dice that can be used for things such as boosting damage negating damage dealing damage or even make attacks on turns you took a non attack action.

What are your thoughts.


Definatly glad to see that encounter budgets are still around I enjoy being able to compare those xp totals against what im using.


It also includes Rules for those worried about the quick recovery time of full HP after a night.


Am I the only one whoses read it yet?


I just got done reading most of it. My initial fears of the Rogue being too powerful were mitigatged somewhat, but exacerbated in others. The Rogue Scheme 'Thug' basically lets the Rogue deal sneak attack damage every round, as long as two allies are within reach of the creature you're attacking. Now, I looked at the 'equipment' section, and weapons with Reach can be used to increase your Reach by 5ft, but doesn't say anything about not attacking adjacent squares.

I get the feeling you'll be seeing a lot of Glaive wielding fighters out there to abuse that.

It just concerns me that the Rogue is, by design or accident, built to have the best AC. Light armor gives you your full Dexterity Mod to AC, Medium Armor gives a maximum of +2 from Dex to AC, Heavy Armor gives none at all!

Medium Armor's Best AC (including Dex), is 17.
Heavy Armor's Best AC (including Dex), is 18.
Light Armor's Best AC (including Dex), is 18.

Keep in mind, most Rogue's will be using Dexterity to hit and damage, as well as AC, so a Rogue with a high AC, is also going to have a high attack bonus and damage bonus.

Attack bonuses are calculated at 1d20 + Ability + class modifiers + everything else (spells, feats, traits what-have-you). The Fighter gets a Weapon Bonus of +3, while the Rogue gets a Weapon Bonus of +2! So the Fighter and the Rogue (assuming equal stats) are, mostly, going to have the same attack Bonus for the first 5 levles!

I just can't help but think, when you stop and look at the Rogue and what he does, someone is going to say, "Nice Fighter".

============================

Races: OMG WTF WERE THEY THINKING?

All races included can add +1 to a certain ability scores, for Elves, this is either Intelligence or Dexterity; for Dwarves, this is Wisdom or Constitution; for Halflings, this is Dexteirty or Charisma.

What do Humans get?

Well, I'm glad you asked. Humans get a +2 to any ability score of their choosing, and a +1 to all other ability scores.

Each class can also add a +1 to an ability score of the player's choice at character creation. So a Human could have +2 to two ability scores, and a +1 to the remaining four. Considering 20 is the max, and I believe it was mentioned that anything above 20 is reserved for monsters not players, this is significant.

D&D Next plays a much larger focus on ability scores than 3.X/Pathfinder. Spell DCs for a Cleric are a straight 10 + Wisdom modifier (no scaling); while for a Wizard, it's 11 + Intelligence modifier and scales higher as the Wizard grows more powerful (12 + Int at 5th level).

Attack bonuses are, more or less, 1d20 + Ability mod. Saving throws are 1d20 + Ability Mod.

Most things are calculated off straight Ability Modifier, with few other influences. So the ability for Humans to have a much better Ability scores than the other races, is, I think, a significant advantage.

I mean, the High Elf Wizard is being portrayed as the most powerful Wizard by the book, but when you really break it down, all he has is an additional minor spell over the Human Wizard.

But the Human Wizard could (theoretically) have a 20 Intelligence and a 20 Constitution, while the Elf could, at best, have 20 in one and an 18 in the other, or 19 in both (the Wizard class gives a +1 to either Intelligence or Constitution).

============================

Hmm, the Wizard. I think we'll see a lot more of these running around. Infinite Magic Missiles? Yes Puh-lease!

Wizards gain a number of spells each level equal to their Intelligenve Modifier? Fecking A! That's Awesome!

Ritual's allow me to cast most of those utility spells I hate preparing and keep all my Combat Spells memorized instead? SWEET!

However, sad to say, Blasting is even worse in D&D Next. Fireball is now simply 5d6, and Lightning Bolt is 6d6. Neither spell scales with power. In fact, none of the spells scale in power, though spell levels are increased to 10th.

============================

Cleric seems short-changed on a lot of things. He has worse save DCs that don't get any higher, fewer spells, and his defences are dependent on which Domains he picks (as the Cleric is no proficient in any armor or shields but differnet Domains grant different proficiences).

His Weapon Attack Bonus (all classes have one, even the Wizard), is exactly the same as the Wizard is, so the Cleric will be just as good at swiging a weapon as a Wizard, except the Cleric might have better ability scores in Strength/Dex.

Honestly, I'm afraid the Cleric has been reduced to little more than a heal/buff bot. Even then, the Healing he can do isn't all that great. He's got a knock-off version of Channel Energy (except only 1 target within 30 feet, unlike the Pathfinder version), and he can't spontanteously convert any prepared spell into a Cure spell, he must prepare them ahead of time.

His spell casting is a little different though, more like a Sorcerer. A Cleric prepares spells like a Wizard, but instead of loosing the spell, he looses a spell Slot. A 1st level Cleric only has two 1st level Spell Slots. If he prepares Bless and Cure Light Wounds he could cast either spell twice, or each spell once.

The Cure progression seems to have changed as well. CLW heals 1d8 + 4, whils CMW heals 2d8 + 4 and CSW heals 4d8 + 4, it seems the number of dice healed doubles with each increase in spell level. Could be good, could be bad, but the lack of static bonus that scales with levels is a concern.

============================

Fighter's aren't very interesting in my opinion, though the "expertise dice" is a cool mechanic. It doesn't really seem to allow for much customization, but that might just be a fault of the Playtest, an not the full game. I gotta say, I don't look forward to playing a Fighter in D&D Next.

============================

I finally see what they meant when they say "Modular". The latest Playtest includes Backgrounds and Specialties. Specialties are a collection of Feats one can take. For instance, taking the Dual Wielder Specialtie lets you Dual Wield Finessable weapons at first level, but each attack deals half damage, and at third level, you get a +1 bonus to AC via Two-Weapon Defense.

I only glanced through the Backgrounds section, but it seems to be the "Skills" Section. When you choose a Background, you choose a small number of skills that you are "trained" in (giving a +3 bonus on those skills), and a Trait (yes, a Trait, almost exactly like Pathfinder).

The Traits give you special role-playing bonuses, or mechanical bonuses. Like choosing a Bounty Hunter Background allows you to legally hunt down Bounties for money, and local authorities may approach you with requests to hunt down Bounties.

So the DM could sit down and say, "Alright, we're playing with Specialties, but no Backgrounds in this campaign" and you would know not to give your character the Background section.

============================

My impression remains the same as it was before. Interesting, but I prefer Pathfinder.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I only glanced through it. But I noticed plate mail, Mithril scale, and dragon scale cost 5000 GP? WTF? The next armor down only coast 500 GP.

Not to mention they are bringing back electrum pieces, and the different conversion rates for the different types of coins. What happened to keeping it simple?

Sticking with Pathfinder.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Really liking what I am reading. So far WotC have my money for this game. Old school feel with simple mechanics. And as yet no battle mat or square counting!!! Yeh!


Rule of three awhile back already said tactical play would be presented in an optional format either in the core book or a module.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
Rule of three awhile back already said tactical play would be presented in an optional format either in the core book or a module.

So glad of that. Happy for it to exist as a module, but I am really looking forward to a D&D that doesn't force you to play that way.

5e seems about the power level that D&D was in the dim dark past. I like that less heroic start to life. They haven't put a foot wrong for me yet in terms of development.

Very nice counterpoint to the complex PF. I don't see them as competing games but both filling a niche.

S.


Also loving the fact the the core assumption will be that Magic items aren't needed to overcome challenges thus placing the gaining of such soley on GM discretion.

Cheliax

Way better than the first playtest. Still unconvinced.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

this playtest actually looks good, and worthwhile to try, didnt even bother with the first! my only grip soooo far is rapid shot and twf only deal half damage, so its only good to attack two targets with.


drowranger80 wrote:
this playtest actually looks good, and worthwhile to try, didnt even bother with the first! my only grip soooo far is rapid shot and twf only deal half damage, so its only good to attack two targets with.

It's worthwhile attacking one target twice (in this scheme) if your to-hit probability is low, but you've got some source of bonus damage that can be applied any time you hit - such as a Rogues sneak attack or a Fighter's CS Dice.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

oh, i agree and understand that there are definetly corner cases to consider, but it does seem to take out alot of the fun a a twf build.


I think it will be a fun game! But so far my preference remains with Pathfinder. Is funny cause I found about pathfinder reading about DND Next .

Andoran

I think it looks fairly well so far MINUS the fact that humans got out like bandits on their stats. We'll see if it matters as much.

However it is a bit unfair to lay notice to the stats alone without looking at the other bonuses each race that isn't human gets. Wood elves move 5 feet faster than other races. All elves are not only immune to sleep but anything Charm related (in the past, thats pretty huge). Then you have your traditional night vision type stuff as well as the fact that when using the longsword, shortbow, or longbow the damage die of this weapon is increased by 1 damage die <d6 to d8 etc etc> (I don't agree with the longsword stereotype STILL as they are generally described as graceful fighters but I guess its not something that will go away)

We'll have to wait and see how useful these no stat buffs come into play.

I already miss the Avenger though. Easily the most fun I've had with a class in ANY edition.


Playing around with numbers and encounter design, I noticed a couple of things. To start with:

Quote:

As a rule of thumb, you can figure that the characters will probably get through four average encounters, six or seven easy encounters, or two tough encounters before they have to take a

long rest.

So I totaled up the experience for this and saw that at 1st level any of these will put you just about 2nd level. 650xp to reach second. That's 6 and half easy encounters, ~4 average ones or 2 tough ones.

That pattern repeats up to 4th level. But to reach 5th level (the last they give exp needed for) it doubles, which seems strange.

Do you think they're setting it up to rush through the first few levels then slow down or is there something else going on here?

1 adventuring day/level seems fast to me, but I'm not actually sure how that compares to PF or 4E.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I posted this on EnWorld so to save time and make a new post I am just C&P my general feel post here.

After reading the playtest doc . This is kinda my take(granted my memory is fuzzy on early editions of DnD i was young)

5E to me feels like they took the skeleton of OD&D, put the nerves, muscles, tendons etc of 2E, put in several 3E organs, with a couple of 4E organs.

Or is not so metaphoric speak. It seems like the simple framework of OD&D, with a lot of the fiddly bits, skills, kits etc of 2E, with some 3E aspects added a few 4E aspects thrown in.

Just like last time there is a couple of things I like, a couple of things I really don't like and most of the rest I am indifferent to. As it stands now 5E is shaping up to be my second favorite version of DnD.


One question: Wizards HP in DND Next is 1d4 (or 3) + your Constitution
modifier per wizard level gained. Do character get full hit dice at first level? If they do on what page is the rule? if not that means a Wizard might end up having 1 HP at first level in case I decided to roll instead of taking 3.


Misery wrote:

I think it looks fairly well so far MINUS the fact that humans got out like bandits on their stats. We'll see if it matters as much.

However it is a bit unfair to lay notice to the stats alone without looking at the other bonuses each race that isn't human gets. Wood elves move 5 feet faster than other races. All elves are not only immune to sleep but anything Charm related (in the past, thats pretty huge). Then you have your traditional night vision type stuff as well as the fact that when using the longsword, shortbow, or longbow the damage die of this weapon is increased by 1 damage die <d6 to d8 etc etc> (I don't agree with the longsword stereotype STILL as they are generally described as graceful fighters but I guess its not something that will go away)

We'll have to wait and see how useful these no stat buffs come into play.

I already miss the Avenger though. Easily the most fun I've had with a class in ANY edition.

The best non-human race, I think, are the dwarves. Their traits simply make the dwarf easier to survive.


Interesting that the skills (backgrounds) aren't directly linked to the classes. That allows some fun concepts.

Andoran

Tels wrote:
Misery wrote:

I think it looks fairly well so far MINUS the fact that humans got out like bandits on their stats. We'll see if it matters as much.

However it is a bit unfair to lay notice to the stats alone without looking at the other bonuses each race that isn't human gets. Wood elves move 5 feet faster than other races. All elves are not only immune to sleep but anything Charm related (in the past, thats pretty huge). Then you have your traditional night vision type stuff as well as the fact that when using the longsword, shortbow, or longbow the damage die of this weapon is increased by 1 damage die <d6 to d8 etc etc> (I don't agree with the longsword stereotype STILL as they are generally described as graceful fighters but I guess its not something that will go away)

We'll have to wait and see how useful these no stat buffs come into play.

I already miss the Avenger though. Easily the most fun I've had with a class in ANY edition.

The best non-human race, I think, are the dwarves. Their traits simply make the dwarf easier to survive.

You might be right. Time will tell with a bunch of play testing.

On that note, for those who claim the playtest and feedback doesn't actually matter, the new fighter dice pool came from player feedback so if you aren't one of the ones already set in stone to hate this game, I encourage everyone to playtest it and throw out the feedback you find.

So far I really love how quick combat has been on a few practice fights we did. Getting ready to setup a playtest session this week at some point.


artificer wrote:

One question: Wizards HP in DND Next is 1d4 (or 3) + your Constitution

modifier per wizard level gained. Do character get full hit dice at first level? If they do on what page is the rule? if not that means a Wizard might end up having 1 HP at first level in case I decided to roll instead of taking 3.

Right under Creating a Wizard it says "Starting Hit Points: 4 + your Constitution modifier". All the classes give maximum hit points at first level. No rule says this, but each class lists maximum hitpoints at first level.


Misery wrote:
Tels wrote:
Misery wrote:

I think it looks fairly well so far MINUS the fact that humans got out like bandits on their stats. We'll see if it matters as much.

However it is a bit unfair to lay notice to the stats alone without looking at the other bonuses each race that isn't human gets. Wood elves move 5 feet faster than other races. All elves are not only immune to sleep but anything Charm related (in the past, thats pretty huge). Then you have your traditional night vision type stuff as well as the fact that when using the longsword, shortbow, or longbow the damage die of this weapon is increased by 1 damage die <d6 to d8 etc etc> (I don't agree with the longsword stereotype STILL as they are generally described as graceful fighters but I guess its not something that will go away)

We'll have to wait and see how useful these no stat buffs come into play.

I already miss the Avenger though. Easily the most fun I've had with a class in ANY edition.

The best non-human race, I think, are the dwarves. Their traits simply make the dwarf easier to survive.

You might be right. Time will tell with a bunch of play testing.

On that note, for those who claim the playtest and feedback doesn't actually matter, the new fighter dice pool came from player feedback so if you aren't one of the ones already set in stone to hate this game, I encourage everyone to playtest it and throw out the feedback you find.

So far I really love how quick combat has been on a few practice fights we did. Getting ready to setup a playtest session this week at some point.

Unfortunately, I won't get to playtest. No one around here is interested in running another playtest, or playing in one. So it's a little frustrating, all I get to do at this point is theorycraft.


Initial thoughts:

1) I am liking the fighter mechanic. Adds interesting options in an elegant format. I think I'd like a bit more customization though - starting with 2 automatic choices of your three tricks is a bit limiting. Still, a good core concept, in my mind. I am especially a fan of Snap Shot and Jab, which allow you to do other stuff while getting in a quick attack - I think this will go far to encourage improvising and clever ideas.

1b) Glancing Blow seems like it needs fixing. It lets you do some damage on a miss, provided you rolled at least a 10 on the die. But a fighter will almost always hit on a 10 or 11. I'm wondering if making it a broader range might be more reasonable.

2) Meanwhile, the rogue looks potentially very dull. The huge sneak attack damage seems to be built around the concept that the rogue will spend every other round setting up advantage in some fashion (Hiding, Sniping, etc). But I could easily see them getting it every round with a well built party (like a fighter who knocks enemies prone) or with the Thug scheme. Toning down the Thug scheme in general seems wise, as I also don't like the idea of rogue's being able to immobilize an enemy every single round as long as they can deal sneak attack.

2b) They definitely are emphasizing the rogue's role as the master of skills. Perhaps almost too much - the rogue will auto-pass even hard DCs without much trouble, which maybe seems a bit too much. Maybe even just make it so that they can't do their 'take 10' if they roll a 1, so rolling the die has some tension to it, rather than none at all.

3) I am not a fan of returning to dx+Con hp per level. It makes Con way too necessary to survival. We're also back to having such frail wizards at level 1 that they will regularly get dropped in 1 hit. I'd prefer 4E's approach of giving Con Score hp at level 1, and then having it just scale via Hit Dice from there. Wizards will still be significantly more fragile than Fighters.... but not to such an extreme that the game breaks down.

4) The xp definitely seems high, but I'm guessing that is just a way to make sure the playtest covers more levels at a faster pace. So I'm not too worried there.

5) What is a bit worrisome is... how inaccurate monsters are. Almost every monster is rolling at around +2 to hit. With ACs around 16-17, that just seems a bit low.

Andoran

I liked what I saw. No one around me wants to playtest the material thought. I think its a welcome change from 4e which I wasn't a fan of but has enough 4e stuff in it that it isn't a huge turn off for me. Seems a fairly simple mechanic for skills and combat and such without 10 billion powers for the different classes.

Mike


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Try to find a play-by-post game for a playtest if you have no other option, that's what I did. It makes for a slower paced game, but adds the benefit of being able to discuss actions and rules every round if you want.


I'm just going to cut-&-paste from what I said in another place...

Downloaded and reviewed bits and pieces of the new Playtest. Mostly the races and classes with a bit of the How-To rules. Some thoughts:

• Races: I enjoyed that they dismissed the idea of adding back in racial penalties. Races now get a +1 bonus to one stat based on sub-race (*sigh*). And I'm enamored of bring back in sub-races either, which is kinda lame to tie them into mechanical differences.
For the most part, the races seemed balanced thought I hate the rule that lightfoot halflings can hide behind bigger creatures than themselves, which to me says other's can't do this (ie. a Human hiding behind a huge stone giant). Also, humans are the most powerful but at the same time, the most boring races in the bunch. As most races receive a +1 bonus to one stat, humans get a +2 bonus to one stat PLUS a +1 bonus to everything else. So using the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 = 25 point-buy) a Human would have 17, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9 = 36 points!!). Yet that's all they receive. I'd rather just have a +2 bonus to 1 stat and maybe a +1 bonus to trained skills or perhaps a bonus feat or something more traditional.

• Classes: To be fair, I only gave it a quick look through but there are some significant improvements from the 1st playtest packet. One thing that sticks out that I am NOT a fan of is the semi-style BAB/THAC0 system they've got going. It's not as elegant as 4E's +1/2 level to attacks (which is preferrable over a hodge-podge of bonuses across the classes) but it's not as moronic as the scaling of BAB/THAC0. Still, the Rogue could use a bump a little bit more after 3rd level or so. As it stands, the Fighter gets +3/+3/+3/+4/+4 to weapon attacks (I believe) while the Rogue gets strait +2's for the first 5 levels. I think a +2/+2/+2/+3/+3 would be a better fit IMO.

- Fighter: Combat Superiority is a decent mechanic that I enjoy recharges every turn. They also get interesting combat specialization which I'll get into later when I have the packet in front of me. They added in maneuvers and I'm pretty pleased with them. They won't ever hold up to 4e's powers, but I'm willing to compromise.

- Rogue: Sneak attack isn't as limited IMO with this version and seeing it scale the way it does puts a smile on my face. I haven't read through all the Rogue stuff yet but they get some interesting class features that allow automatic Advantage every so often.

- Cleric: I don't mind that Turn Undead is a spell nor do I mind that, while it's always prepared, it takes up a spell slot to use becuase it's very situational and you can do it more times per day. What I don't like is that they get NO armor proficiencies except what's based on their Domain. They should have.....something, anything, there besides none. OR at least in that part of the description, put "See Domains" and no "None" because this, to me, implies that there might be some clerics that actually receive none and that's a horrid idea. Additionally, the Domains are so screwy with their benefits that I couldn't see anyone play a "Sun" cleric with their domain support. Sun clerics get prof. with light/medium armor and they have an ability to glow with light for 20 ft. In that radius, they can deal X-damage to creatures within that radius. I read that as to mean "ANY CREATURE" in that radius, including the cleric and his allies. That's stupid. If they put in there "Enemies" then it'll be a bit better. The War domain cleric is by far more versatile and plain better mechanically as they get proficiency with all martial weapons, all armor and shields and when they use their Channel Divinity power, they can attack in the same round as well.

- Wizard: I didn't read up as much on this as I would've like but for the most part, it seems unchanged from the Playtest. They get spells and cantrips and spellbooks. They get NO benefits after 1st level except additional spells and they have the same spell attack progression as a Fighter. Very bland IMO.

• Rules: I haven't gone into much of the rules, but there are a few things of note in the overall design of the game that are concerns for me.

- HP: Hit points in the 1st playtest were based on a HD + Con score, with a minimal mark-up as you level. Now, it's back to the abysmal HD + Con modifier, which means your lucky to have a Wizard over 4 hp at 1st level . Additionally, with all the talk about the Bounded Accuracy article, it appears that monsters (and supposedly players) are supposed to deal more damage as they level instead of bonus to hit/AC increase a lot. So with minimal HP, this means 1-shot kills could be very very frequent. I don't like this from a DM point of view.

- Two Weapon Fighting: As it stands, it's plain old bad. The feat stats that you can attack with two (finessable) weapons in 1 turn. All damage deal is halved. So, to me, your requiring a finite resource (feats) for the ability to attack with crappy damage that someone who doesn't spend a feat on can do the same thing with a two-handed weapon. Basically your putting penalties on flavor and that's just bad game design. And it's not like the Rogue can add his full Sneak Attack die (1/round) as icing on the cake as that's halved two as is the same with Fighter's Combat Superority die.

My solution, require that one weapon be finessable (meaing "light") and don't add the ability score onto the attack. So you can take the feat Two-Weapon Fighting and make two attacks with one action, dealing 1d8 (longsword) plus 1d6 (shortsword) and possibly some additional damage die via Sneak Attack and Combat Superiority. The damage will probably be a bit higher than someone with a two-handed sword but that's the point of Feats, gaining something for a resource.

- Opportuinity Attacks/Disengagement: The first part is pretty solid, allowing a creature a Reaction attack against anyone who moves into or through a threatened square. But the Disengagement rules are silly, allowing you to spend your action to not provoke an OA (opportuinity attack). What this does is allow the infamous Shift + Move of 4e. Basically you spend your action moving away from the Fighter and then move into the wizard's (or someone a Fighter might be trying to protect) threatened area, thus negating any reason for having OA's. Instead, removing the disengaging rules would pretty much solve the problem all together. OR, require the Disengagment rules to effectively reduce your speed to 10' and the monster still gets his action (which could be used to make a ranged attack for example).


Diffan wrote:
What I don't like is that they get NO armor proficiencies except what's based on their Domain.

Heh, I actually really like that the default cleric is a guy in a robe. Makes for (potentially) much bigger difference between the domains, and leaves the 'shining knight' stuff to the War and such domains. It's also worth noting that both the presented domains (War and Sun) offer armour proficiency, so we don't know if they're all going to end up offer something like it. I appreciate the notion that they won't have to, though.

One of the chief highlights of this document.

I also really like the expanded Specialties because they aren't tied to class. That's really great for odd-ball character concepts. Want a sneaky figter? Or a fighter who was raised by wizards? Lurker or Magic-User make for interesting specialties.

I think that looks really good so far.


True story.

High Elfs can cast 1 Minor Wizard spell. The Necromancer Specialty has a prerequisite of "able to cast at least one spell". So a High Elf Fighter can kill his enemy, and capture the soul to give you advantage on an attack roll involving a necromantinc spell or the victim disadvantage on the same attack roll to save, and (at level 3) reanimate the body as an Animate Servant in a ritual that takes 10 minutes

Cheliax

Which is a pretty cool feature. And doesn't sound even too much off balance.


Tels wrote:

True story.

High Elfs can cast 1 Minor Wizard spell. The Necromancer Specialty has a prerequisite of "able to cast at least one spell". So a High Elf Fighter can kill his enemy, and capture the soul to give you advantage on an attack roll involving a necromantinc spell or the victim disadvantage on the same attack roll to save, and (at level 3) reanimate the body as an Animate Servant in a ritual that takes 10 minutes

I don't think we've seen any minor necromancy spells yet, so that's probably not very useful. On the other hand, high elf fighters never leave home without their undead flanking buddies. Well-known fact. :)

It certainly makes High Elf infantry pretty scary.


Slaunyeh wrote:
Diffan wrote:
What I don't like is that they get NO armor proficiencies except what's based on their Domain.
Heh, I actually really like that the default cleric is a guy in a robe. Makes for (potentially) much bigger difference between the domains, and leaves the 'shining knight' stuff to the War and such domains. It's also worth noting that both the presented domains (War and Sun) offer armour proficiency, so we don't know if they're all going to end up offer something like it. I appreciate the notion that they won't have to, though.

It's not that their armor is tied into their domain that I have a real issue with. It's the fact that they receive "none" in the Armor proficiency line, meaning that probably (speculation) at some point they're going to have a domain(s) that don't provide any armor at all, which I think is bad.

If they don't say "None" and instead just put "See Domain description" then I'll more likely be fine with it as it sorta cements that domains provide some sort of armor proficiency.

Slaunyeh wrote:


One of the chief highlights of this document.

I also really like the expanded Specialties because they aren't tied to class. That's really great for odd-ball character concepts. Want a sneaky figter? Or a fighter who was raised by wizards? Lurker or Magic-User make for interesting specialties.

I think that looks really good so far.

They're very much like Themes from 4E which I found to be quite fun. Glad to see they made the transisition somehow into the new Edition.


Is having some clerics be more focused on casting and some more on fighting really a bad thing? You can have a Cloistered Cleric type built in from the start.

I don't think it really makes a difference whether is says "none" or "See Domain". You could still have a Domain that didn't give any.

You're also missing the main Domain feature of the Sun Domain: the minor spell Radiant Lance. (Along with fire and radiant resistance.) That's what balances out the armor/weapon proficiencies of the War Domain. You're a caster, not a thug.


So thief-cleric will wear leathers and pacifist healer will have robes? I'm fine with that as long as one has something to compensate for lighter armour in the first place. Quite unlike some domains in PF (knife vs. greatsword proficiency...)


Diffan wrote:
Two Weapon Fighting: As it stands, it's plain old bad. The feat stats that you can attack with two (finessable) weapons in 1 turn. All damage deal is halved. So, to me, your requiring a finite resource (feats) for the ability to attack with crappy damage that someone who doesn't spend a feat on can do the same thing with a two-handed weapon. Basically your putting penalties on flavor and that's just bad game design. And it's not like the Rogue can add his full Sneak Attack die (1/round) as icing on the cake as that's halved two as is the same with Fighter's Combat Superority die.

The real advantage I see for TWF or Rapid Shot is it lets you take out multiple weak enemies, which is a legitimate benefit. I do think a good solution would be to let bonus damage (like Sneak Attack, etc) deal full, as that means it also offers the benefit of more reliably hitting.

Diffan wrote:
Opportuinity Attacks/Disengagement: The first part is pretty solid, allowing a creature a Reaction attack against anyone who moves into or through a threatened square. But the Disengagement rules are silly, allowing you to spend your action to not provoke an OA (opportuinity attack). What this does is allow the infamous Shift + Move of 4e. Basically you spend your action moving away from the Fighter and then move into the wizard's (or someone a Fighter might be trying to protect) threatened area, thus negating any reason for having OA's. Instead, removing the disengaging rules would pretty much solve the problem all together. OR, require the Disengagment rules to effectively reduce your speed to 10' and the monster still gets his action (which could be used to make a ranged attack for example).

I do think that make OAs a Reaction is a good balance between not having them at all, and having them so omnipresent that they bog down combat. Disengagement doesn't seem like a problem to me - giving up your action is a serious cost. Especially since if a monster does that, the wizard can then spend his turn disengaging while the rest of the group again surrounds the enemy.

My only real concern is for the Guardian Fighter, who has a ton of ways to interfere with enemies... and all of them require his (1) Reaction. If he takes an OA, he can't use Protect, or Defender or Hold the Line. Now, there won't typically be a turn where he'll need to use all 4... but only being able to use 1 will very much mitigate how much protecting he can do.

Perhaps allow an expertise die to be spent to gain an extra reaction? Or something along those lines.


I was still hopeful, but I realize now I was being naive. This has the same effect on me that 4E had. The feel of it is far too different for me; I won't be buying it, unless radical changes are made.

The alien Advantage/Disadvantage system seems so firmly rooted into the system that it will take a rules-damaging crowbar to get rid of it. Why this was used still baffles me. I cannot fathom why people like it. (And don’t bother trying to persuade me; I’ve heard all the arguments and disagree with them. IMG, there will always be the +4/-4 mechanic that is a staple of D&D.)

I don't like the fact that the vast majority of the options that are presented for any of the classes are combat-oriented; I don't want to buy a combat system, I want to buy a role-playing game. I want to see something closer to a 50-50 combat/non-combat rules set, please, or I won’t buy it.

I think the rogue is FAR too powerful with sneak attack; but then, I felt the same way with 3.5. Too much damage far too soon. A rogue’s job is to deal with traps and doors; he isn’t a front-line fighter.

I hate the weapons mastery that gives every race a way to change the basic size of his favorite weapon, increasing it a die type, in spite of the fact that the weapon itself would likely be smaller, at least in the case of the halfling.

They did try fix the fighter's silly wound-you-with-the-wind-from-my-miss ability. Unfortunately, they made it worse by introducing yet another alien concept in the form of expertise dice.

I don't want to play d20 modern; giving the fighter action points is a cheesy way to make up for the fact he gets screwed out of his premier role as front-liner by every feat or maneuver every other class can take.

There's an easy fix to the problem; stop giving the other classes things like a die per level of sneak attack or an autohit at-will power that does damage that can't be defended against. Let the guy who's name is Fighter be the one who fights. The others have their roles in the game; let them stay with those roles.

Backgrounds determining skill choice and specialties determining feats is fine; but there aren’t enough choices. This might be rectified in the future, but it doesn’t bode well. It feels like the powers of 4E in a different skin. And to me that’s a deal-breaker.

The automatic magic missile is still an issue for me; it needs to be a 1st-level spell so the mage won't be a walking autohit machinegun.

And why bother to make the casting of a spell 6 seconds long? If you cast a spell within 5 feet of an opponent, you magically give that opponent the ability to stop you from targeting anything more than 5 feet away.

Other than that, there's nothing preventing you from lobbing a fireball up his nose. His attack means nothing. The six seconds of casting time has absolutely no significance as far as the rules are concerned.

I hate the very idea of rituals, which gives the game a 4E feel to me; casting a spell that takes that long is fine, but it should come off your spell usages, and it should always take that long.

And of course, the characters still regenerate. What's the point in having a hit point system if it doesn't mean anything?

If I ever run this system for real, neither healing word nor the short rest will exist IMG; there's no challenge to a game system that won't kill characters.

I'm afraid that all of this has turned my stomach as far as D&D is concerned; I'm going to take a break, and will be using the Hero System when my game starts up this fall; I don't want to think about what WotC is doing with 5E.

For WotC's sake, I honestly hope that I am in the minority. If I am not, then this edition will tank far sooner than 4E did.


Problem with Dual Wielding and Sneak Attack:

Rogue-Sneak Attack wrote:
Once per round, you can deal Sneak Attack damage to a creature that you hit with an attack.

So, regardless of the number of attacks a Rogue has, he only gets Sneak Attack damage once per round. Rapid Shot and Duel Wielding will actually be bad for Rogue's as they then only get half their Sneak Attack damage, period.


I am still on the fence with advantage/disadvantage, but it is a novel concept to increase your chances of hitting, without granting to many bonuses or subtractions for an individual hit to make it auto success or fail. I believe this is in the system to keep bounded accuracy in place, where defenses and hit rates don’t scale up like 4E, and keep more of a traditional approach of certain creatures and armors always having a relative defense or hit that does not change dramatically.

As to being combat focused versus role playing, I do not think it will have a problem with either, but it definitely is a step away from 4E power structure, only a dozen skills, and needing a grid. With ability rolls determining the majority of skills, it will cover more role playing situations that are not bound by a rigid skill system that is tied to classes.

I am not convinced on expertise dice, on par with my reservations with advantage/disadvantage, since they are new mechanics.
I wish they would keep rituals distinct and separate from spells, so they can be used to cover some of the classics like wish outside of combat.

I will have to look at the healing rules in details, as I believe they are attempting to maintain the classic mechanisms of healing at the end of the day, while addressing some of the more random healing elements that drive me up a wall since they create a road block to further advance the story. It is feasible to have classic healing all the way to 4E methods of healing, just by offering some optional rules or variation of healing for the DM to control.

I am also not in the camp of the rogue, or similar classes like bards, being the skill monkeys, especially if areas like trap finding are limited to specific classes. But I don't like the concept of skill monkey in general.

Anyone is going to have a heart attack if they rigidly subscribe to a specific version of D&D, without making any types of compromise. But with those individuals, they are probably playing the edition of D&D they prefer and won’t be influenced by the release of 5E.

All I can do is continue to make comments on the WOTC boards, and wait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

They did try fix the fighter's silly wound-you-with-the-wind-from-my-miss ability. Unfortunately, they made it worse by introducing yet another alien concept in the form of expertise dice.

And of course, the characters still regenerate. What's the point in having a hit point system if it doesn't mean anything?

If I ever run this system for real, neither healing word nor the short rest will exist IMG; there's no challenge to a game system that won't kill characters.

This all ties into the basic concept, dating back at least to 1E, that damage doesn't actually reflect bleeding holes in your body. If it did it would be silly to imagine a man who could take as much damage as a grizzly, much less a dragon.

Once you accept that, misses doing a bit off damage and healing with a short rest make more sense. It's not regeneration. Gaping wounds aren't actually closing. You're just tired and slowed a bit. Taking a quick break rests you up so the next blow isn't as likely to be the one that actually cuts deep and does real damage.

And mechanically, there's still plenty of challenge. You can still kill characters. It's just a little harder to nickel and dime them to death over many fights. Not that you can't. All of these are limited resources. I'm sure CLW wands would see plenty of use, if they end up being available.


Uchawi wrote:
I am also not in the camp of the rogue, or similar classes like bards, being the skill monkeys, especially if areas like trap finding are limited to specific classes. But I don't like the concept of skill monkey in general.

Skills aren't tied to classes anymore, anyone seems to be able to use any skill they wish. However, if you select a Background, you gain a +3 bonus on 3 skills that are thematically linked to that skill. For instance, the Thief Background has Find and Remove Traps, Open Locks and Stealth as thematic skills. You also gain some role-playing options by recognizing secret signs used universally by thieves and know how to find local thieves guilds and the like.

However, the Rogue is inclined to be more of the skill monkey as he gets special abilities that allow him to use skills easier than other classes. But any class can still use a skill, regardless, the Rogue just has an easier time of doing so.


you will very rarely get more than 1 attack per round, so 1 sneak is fine. after that stab....you are no longer sneaking anyway so any subsequent attack shouldnt be a sneak attack

one of the great difficulties of dnd-next is making people set out with a clear head and no baggage of previous editions


@thejeff There are 3 diffenet methonds listed to help with over night regen.

the first makes players spend HD to recover any hp for a long rest.

The second reduces your gained HD from a long rest to CON mod I think.

The last combines these.


Talonhawke wrote:

@thejeff There are 3 diffenet methonds listed to help with over night regen.

the first makes players spend HD to recover any hp for a long rest.

The second reduces your gained HD from a long rest to CON mod I think.

The last combines these.

And I assume if you're any one those, you can't get hp back from short rests?

That just goes back to "The cleric blows all his spells as heals before we sleep and/or we use items (potions/wands if they're available)"
Is that really so much better?

Since, as I said before, we know 80hp of damage to a guy with 100hp isn't really 10 times as many gaping wounds as it would take to kill a normal man, is it really a big deal if most of it heals quickly?


thenovalord wrote:

you will very rarely get more than 1 attack per round, so 1 sneak is fine. after that stab....you are no longer sneaking anyway so any subsequent attack shouldnt be a sneak attack

one of the great difficulties of dnd-next is making people set out with a clear head and no baggage of previous editions

That, to me, just doesn't make sense. It's not like your attacking, resolving, letting the guy know your there, turning him around, saying Hi, and then attacking him with the second blade/weapon/etc. It all happes within a few seconds which should allow you to add your SA damage to one of the two attacks (but not both, that'd actually be very OP).


Diffan wrote:
thenovalord wrote:

you will very rarely get more than 1 attack per round, so 1 sneak is fine. after that stab....you are no longer sneaking anyway so any subsequent attack shouldnt be a sneak attack

one of the great difficulties of dnd-next is making people set out with a clear head and no baggage of previous editions

That, to me, just doesn't make sense. It's not like your attacking, resolving, letting the guy know your there, turning him around, saying Hi, and then attacking him with the second blade/weapon/etc. It all happes within a few seconds which should allow you to add your SA damage to one of the two attacks (but not both, that'd actually be very OP).

It's a common house rule for my group. If you've got the set up to get a Sneak Attack and a Full Attack, then all of your attacks get Sneak Attack damage.


So I literally *just* finished downloading the playtest, but I really have to say, I like where they're going with Clerics.

I'm sure the negative criticisms will show up eventually though. :P
(Just thought of one - I don't see multi-classing being a real option with the way these classes are working.)


Okay, they lost me with Wizard.
Spell prep time was fine for Clerics because you never "lose" your prepared spell, but they did the same thing to prep time for Wizards, and that just doesn't work.
One minute per spell level per spell? Are you freakin' kidding me? So at level 5, it'll take 16 minutes to prepare spells for the day. No biggie. Imagine at level 15 though. 15 minutes is suddenly a couple hours.


Neo2151 wrote:

Okay, they lost me with Wizard.

Spell prep time was fine for Clerics because you never "lose" your prepared spell, but they did the same thing to prep time for Wizards, and that just doesn't work.
One minute per spell level per spell? Are you freakin' kidding me? So at level 5, it'll take 16 minutes to prepare spells for the day. No biggie. Imagine at level 15 though. 15 minutes is suddenly a couple hours.

I think something like an hour to restore your highest level of spells, half hour for next highest and ten minutes for each level below that would work. So if you only cast first level it takes an hour. If you can cast tenth level spells it costs 170 minutes if you need full replacement.

L


Wasn't it 15min/spell level in 1E?
More reasons for high-level casters not to nova.

1 to 50 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / The New playtest and your thoughts. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.