What it says above. There is a new playtest packet due out Wednesday 3-20. It includes the Paladin and a number of changes. Should be interesting. That's the public information. You pretty much need to go and see what's going on with it.
What it says above. There is a new playtest packet due out Wednesday 3-20. It includes the Paladin and a number of changes. Should be interesting. That's the public information. You pretty much need to go and see what's going on with it.
I'm holding out optimism, but it's fading fast. The Druid sound very "meh" to me right now. I liked being able to wildshape into monsters at will in 4E, so going back to 1/day stuff is just more resource management that I really hate dealing with.
The Paladin, probably my favorite class, isn't sounding too good right now. Count me in the "No alignment mechanics" Camp but it sounds like that's exactly what we're getting. It almost seems as if they took the v3.5 Paladin, convereted the Math to D&D:Next and and using that. This, to me, would be a mistake since the 3E paladin had a lot of (to be frank) Garbage mechanics that were too clunky and not powerful enough. Pathfinder's Paladin made him better (Spellcasting based of Charisma, Smite lasting much longer, lay on hands being far more useful, etc.)
So we'll see. I hope the do a good job but my interest is slowly falling to the wayside.
Looking forward to seeing the Ranger and Druid. Druid was my favorite class pre 3rd ed before they broke it. Pathfinder and 4th ed more or less got Paladins right mechanically.
Well I read it.
The Good:
• Ranger Favored Enemy is pretty cool. It's useful for a lot of situations and not just against 1 specific enemy. Rangers get spells from 1st level. And Rangers aren't tied into a specific fighting style (ie. Bow or TwF, sorry Drizzt fans).
• Paladin smite isn't Alignment (or even creature) specific. They get spells from 1st level and it's based off of Charisma.
• Nothing really changed for the Barbarian (my favorite class so far during the playtest).
• Two-Weapon Fighting is written better and far less clunky. It doesn't take a feat to use, there are no -2 penalty to attacks and yet it remains balanced.
• Races got a pick-me up and Humans got toned down a bit. For example a Dwarf automatically gets +1 to Con and, depending on sub-race, a +1 to either Wisdom or Strength. Humans get +1 to all stats.
• Wizards can now, 1/day, relearn a spell they cast earlier in that day.
The Bad
Well, where to start?
• The Fighter -
- Fighters are now going back to 3E-style thinking with bonus feats, as if that was a good idea in the first place?!
- Weapon selection still has about ZERO impact on your character. Weapon have no narrative element and are just a means to an end for specific die.
- Warlord-ish powers are being subsumed into the Figher, furthering the designers attempt to sweep 4E under the rug as if it never happened. And they're not even really that good as it takes your Reaction to do anything with them.
• The Rogue -
- Cut down the additional skills they get by 2.
- There is very little of customization outside your Rogue scheme.
- Their attack progression is lower, great for a possible melee-oriented class :rolleyes:
• The Paladin -
- ALL of their utility and combat features are based off of their Channel Divinty feature, which they can only do 1/day at 1st level. This extends to a total of 4/day total at 15th level. So your Lay on Hands, your Smite, your Turn Undead, is all pooled into 1 thing of which you get an extreamly limited resource on.
- Smite, while no longer alignment specific AND dealing a pretty decent damage output (3d10 with a successful attack) it a 1-shot pony. It doesn't have any staying power like Pathfinders and it's pretty much *Bam* it's over, moving on. I really hate that.
- WHile spellcasting is good at 1st level, they just took the generic spells from the cleric. There's nothing "Paladin-ish" about their spells. It feels tacked on as an after thought rather than a strong emphasis on design.
- Their summon mount has no other option AND it takes a ridiculous time to summon, like 12 hours (from dawn to dusk or dusk til dawn). You get it for a period of 24-hours (I'm assuming?) and then have to call it again. Pretty stupid IMO.
• The Monk -
- No more Flurry of Blows. You pretty much use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules if that's the style you want.
• The Ranger -
• Specialties and Feats -
- Feats are now how they use combat stuff like Bull Rush and Trip. This puts players who want to employ such tactics in a difficult position. It makes it feel like if you didn't have X-feat then you cannot perform it.
• Skills -
Well that's all I really got out of this packet. There have been some minor changes like the Monster XP changing up a bit, them getting a bit better AC and attacks. Plus things like Shields now grant +2 bonus to AC instead of 1. I'm just not as impressed as I expected to be when I downloaded it today. I was expecting some new stuff or at least some progress in that they're learning how to adapt classes to be more dynamic. But they're not. They're reverting to older playstyles that, IMO, haven't worked. Even Pathfinder made significant improvements that made me say "Yea, that works much better (*cough* Smite *cough*).
I hear alignment based Paladins are back...../ducks for cover
Ya know, even though I hate alignment restrictions this one really hasn't bothered me too much. I think it's the part where there's nothing in there about "Do such and such and your god revokes your character". Like others have stated on WotC boards, Roleplay decisions require Roleplay consequences.
Also, it's extreamly easy to remove alignment from this class (and the agme) and it works perfectly fine.
I hear alignment based Paladins are back...../ducks for cover
Ya know, even though I hate alignment restrictions this one really hasn't bothered me too much. I think it's the part where there's nothing in there about "Do such and such and your god revokes your character". Like others have stated on WotC boards, Roleplay decisions require Roleplay consequences.
Also, it's extreamly easy to remove alignment from this class (and the agme) and it works perfectly fine.
I downloaded it today. I won't have a chance to look it over until the weekend. The Paladin sounds reasonable to me, it does allow for a range of alignments. The lack of diversity in spells; well, it is a playtest afterall. We'll see how it goes. It seems every system has a few issues that are a problem. If the good outweighs the bad it can work. As for small problems, "have house rules will travel" like any other RPG I play...
I hear alignment based Paladins are back...../ducks for cover
I'm an advocate for LG paladins and that is not the biggest problem the packet has. Overall it is just really meh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that these are playtest documents, and we're still early enough in the process that the designers are testing out multiple ideas. If you see something you're not a fan of make sure to mention that in your playtest feedback. Talking about the changes on a messageboard is great, but you also need to take your opinions where they will have an impact on the design process - both positive and negative opinions.
Putting warlord-like powers to fighter is a mistake IMO, unless you make it an alternative to melee. If there is someone you want to me granting additional attacks, the it's usually the guy with a sword!
|
Keep in mind that these are playtest documents, and we're still early enough in the process that the designers are testing out multiple ideas. If you see something you're not a fan of make sure to mention that in your playtest feedback. Talking about the changes on a messageboard is great, but you also need to take your opinions where they will have an impact on the design process - both positive and negative opinions.
A billion times this. If this game comes out and there are things in it you really hate or dislike and you DIDN'T submit feedback on it then I have no words.
Send them in!
When doing tech work, often times I throw a bunch of fixes at a problem and see what sticks. It's very easily possible they are doing the same thing. They might not be improving previous packet decisions but doing something completely different and seeing which gets a MORE positive/less negative reaction.
I'll be one against the Lawful paladin for sure along with other things to help (in my mind).
|
I hear alignment based Paladins are back...../ducks for coverYa know, even though I hate alignment restrictions this one really hasn't bothered me too much. I think it's the part where there's nothing in there about "Do such and such and your god revokes your character". Like others have stated on WotC boards, Roleplay decisions require Roleplay consequences.
Also, it's extreamly easy to remove alignment from this class (and the agme) and it works perfectly fine.
That's great to hear. I love alignment. I hate when it gets too intertwined with mechanics though. I know its been a sore spot for many gamers over the years. If its easy to opt-out of then no harm. That sounds like the approach the game is supposed to be taking.
My players don't want to play this packet. They're happy playing PF or Myth and Magic instead. Oh well.
When doing tech work, often times I throw a bunch of fixes at a problem and see what sticks. It's very easily possible they are doing the same thing. They might not be improving previous packet decisions but doing something completely different and seeing which gets a MORE positive/less negative reaction.
Bingo.
Also, I'd warn against anyone reacting to a new packet with anything along the lines of, "It's like they didn't even listen to my feedback!"
They did listen to your feedback, in all likelihood. Unfortunately, they also listened to everyone else's feedback, and some (or most) of that feedback may have been at odds with your own. Remember, this is a public playtest. Your voice matters, but yours is not the only voice that matters.
That's great to hear. I love alignment. I hate when it gets too intertwined with mechanics though. I know its been a sore spot for many gamers over the years. If its easy to opt-out of then no harm. That sounds like the approach the game is supposed to be taking.I hear alignment based Paladins are back...../ducks for coverYa know, even though I hate alignment restrictions this one really hasn't bothered me too much. I think it's the part where there's nothing in there about "Do such and such and your god revokes your character". Like others have stated on WotC boards, Roleplay decisions require Roleplay consequences.
Also, it's extreamly easy to remove alignment from this class (and the agme) and it works perfectly fine.
Yea, it's pretty much a restriction without any teeth. A person could just grab the Paladin, take the Cavalier theme, then put CN on his Alignment spot. It might be wierd since he's given Protection from Evil spell, but that could be swapped out for something else entirely. I'm going to assume that we'll probably get different varients as more options present themselves.
|
|
I don't have a group to playtest 5E. I mainly lurk in forums and read about its progress. Bounded accuracy had me super excited. Since then I haven't really read anything to garner interest.
You folks still in it can you answer me a few questions? Is magic missile still an at will auto damage spell? Is there still a specialty that allows you to do melee damage even if you miss?
It is no longer at will. It deals auto damage.
|
|
Listening to the Pod Casts from Dungeon & Dragons is well worth it. Getting the insider information on changes really helps to understand why they are being tried and why the old way needed changed. Found it by accident, but I'll be tuning in every time a new packet is released. By not having board game / miniature combats (yet?) they still very much have my interest.
S.
Listening to the Pod Casts from Dungeon & Dragons is well worth it. Getting the insider information on changes really helps to understand why they are being tried and why the old way needed changed. Found it by accident, but I'll be tuning in every time a new packet is released. By not having board game / miniature combats (yet?) they still very much have my interest.
S.
Their Pod Casts do shed some light on their reasonsings but I've found many of those reasonings....unfounded to say the least. And I'm pretty sure TotM style play is being promoted more than using a grid and miniatures due to pretty much all the wording and removal of fiddly-bits (Flanking being one of them). I dunno, I can't seem to enjoy D&D without miniatures but that's me.
|
|
I dunno, I can't seem to enjoy D&D without miniatures but that's me.
And I hope they have optional rules to cover a more tactical miniatures based approach to the game. I would never presume my TotM preferred play style is the only or best one. But 4e took MY style away from me, actually 3e started this trend and 3.5e enshrined it. The edition I played the most was 2e and that in the core books didn't have a miniature in sight.
S.
Perhaps they'll incorporate something else instead of flanking. In Dragon Age you get bonus to attack based on number of people engaged with single opponent if I recall it correctly. And DM can still be recommended to handle advantage to players that describe some tactical positioning, like flanking, even without minis...
- Weapon selection still has about ZERO impact on your character. Weapon have no narrative element and are just a means to an end for specific die.Should be good news for all you reskinners out there.
Meh, not really. Reskinning was a way to take something interesting (mechanics wise) and apply it to a different flavor while maintaining the mechanics. With about zero difference between the weapons, reskinning is pointless. Sure, it's easier but the ease of reskinning was already present.
As for the changes, I'm looking to see how they fix the Monk and Rogue. The way amount of stuff the Monk lost completely makes the class moot and one could just as easily reflavor a Rogue or even Barbarian to do the same things with Feats. The rogue schemes need to be better and they need to rethink the whole Sneak Attack thing.
|
|
Allrighty then, so what does everyone think of the new tiers?
Apprentice lvl 1-3
Adventurer lvl 4-15
Legacy lvl 16-20
Sounds like they are looking for ways to give people a chance at commoner type PCs. Also, maybe there is something about not front loading classes for MC. Legacy sounds interesting but so far we got nothing to show for it.
Discuss.
I kind of like the “zero level” characters apprentice tier he talks about although some of the background/specialty areas so far aren’t things that ever really came out in play for us but were the character’s past.
I think the Adventurer Tier is too wide and the Legacy Tier too narrow. I’d probably do something more along the lines of 1-3, 4-9, 10-14, 15-20 – with an epic 21+ tier for characters who do the whole take down demon lords, quest for immortality thing.
I wonder to what extent they'll add new mechanic elements as you cross the boundary between tiers, for example things like paragon paths and epic destinies in 4E.
|
|
That is way too many tiers for my taste Legendarius. In fact, I would prefer just two myself; 1-10 adventure, 11-20 legacy. I understand their reasoning for the tiers but disagree with that approach. I would have preferred dials like has been mentioned early in Next playtest.
People like having low powered and lethal beginnings. They also like having powerful options and hardiness out of the gate. Instead of popular suggestions like, level "0" or start at level 3, I wish they would have chosen dials instead. Something along the lines of, Fantasy Vietnam starts with 1HD HP and super heroic starts with 3HD HP. Fantasy vietnam would slowly gain class features and race abilities. Super heroic would gain them faster and more up front.
So then when we reach Legacy tier dial the game again. Low power guys move in the direction of simulation. Give them modules for mass combat and running guilds/kingdoms. For the epic folks give them more power and options and start them on the path to fighting demon lords and demi gods. Who says you have to be over level 20 to fight them?
I think those suggestions would go over much better. I know there is a minority that is very turned off by adventure tier starting at level 3. They feel they have lost a portion of the game by having to ignore apprentice levels. I don't happen to have that hang up but I think there is a better way to approach it then "deal with it."
As for MC front loading was it really that big a problem? I have a lot of experience with 3E/PF and I can honestly say front loading wasn't an issue. Prestige classes were the problem. I have to give two big thumbs up to Paizo for recognizing that mess. I just hope the tier system proposed by the Next team has more behind it then worrisome MC rules.
I'm not familiar with the playtest materials, but wouldn't that be the purpose of tiers? That if you don't like high-level play, you play at the Adventurer tier, but for people who do like high-levels, the Legacy tier is available?
I think the following tiers would have been better
apprentice - Level 1-2
adventurer - Level 3-10
legendary - Level 11-15I dont like higher levels. Everthing devolves more and more into a superhero game.
I think you should probably stick to low level games, then, instead of being the sort of person who decides that you not liking something means that no one should have it.
|
|
See these comments point out exactly what I am talking about. Folks who like a low powered game hate high levels and don't care if it gets support. Folks who don't like low power games don't care and plan to start high level. For once cant we have a D&D that everybody can play from 1-20?No. You really can't.
You could have a game that ran from 1-20 that the people who like low level games would like. You'd do that be making the high levels more like the current low ones.
You could have a game that ran from 1-20 that the people who like high level games would like. You'd do that be making the low levels more like the current high ones.You can't have a game that both groups will like all the way through. The styles are very different. People like different things. You can't make them like the same thing. You can't make a magical compromise thing that everyone will like.
Unfortunate. If this is the prevailing attitude then Next is worse off then I thought. Cmon just because its never been done before doesn't mean its impossible!
Unfortunate. If this is the prevailing attitude then Next is worse off then I thought. Cmon just because its never been done before doesn't mean its impossible!See these comments point out exactly what I am talking about. Folks who like a low powered game hate high levels and don't care if it gets support. Folks who don't like low power games don't care and plan to start high level. For once cant we have a D&D that everybody can play from 1-20?No. You really can't.
You could have a game that ran from 1-20 that the people who like low level games would like. You'd do that be making the high levels more like the current low ones.
You could have a game that ran from 1-20 that the people who like high level games would like. You'd do that be making the low levels more like the current high ones.You can't have a game that both groups will like all the way through. The styles are very different. People like different things. You can't make them like the same thing. You can't make a magical compromise thing that everyone will like.
Well, I'd say thejeff is right. That doesn't mean you can't make a game that accommodated the different styles at different levels. Some people will want to start higher than level "X" others won't want to go above level "Y". Others will like the whole range. Kind of like PF / 3.5 now :) A system of "tiers" is one way to determine which adventures / what style you like and, presumably, stick to it. it's the only reason I can see to have a formal named hierarchy of difficulty. Although you would think just giving it a level range would do...
|
|
I think the tier system is a good way to attack the problem. No where does it say you can't start or stop the players levels at certain levels. Perhaps I would have considered;
Levels 1-10 (low)
Levels 11-20 (mid)
Levels 21-30 (high)
Stretch out each tier to cover an equal number of levels. Then people like me, for example, would be asking my players to make level 11 characters for my preferred game. Going from 10 to 11 or 20 to 21 would include some sort of new power line or something that sets the scene for that tier.
S.
|
They did that in 4E. I was not a fan, but I honestly couldn't say if it was because of just other 4E stuff I didn't like or if it was it itself.
I think the 3 levels/styles of play was a bit too artificial. It might be better if it isn't a set number of levels, but also not done by tens also. Something like 1 - 5ish, 7 - 12, and then 15+?
I liked the tier system personally (although I wish the heroic tier was more gritty). It's a pretty abstract thing though - everyone has to be ready for the "jolt" in power level/scope of action. For those who consider levels to be related to or a simulation reality, I could imagine them seeming artificial.
|
|
I think the 3 levels/styles of play was a bit too artificial. It might be better if it isn't a set number of levels, but also not done by tens also. Something like 1 - 5ish, 7 - 12, and then 15+?
What range doesn't really matter, OD&D levels went to 36, in 1e random (e.g. 29th for a Magic User), 2e gave us the 20 level limit which was carried through into 3e/3.5e/PF, and of course 4e gave us 30 levels. MERP had 10 levels, Rolemaster 50. My point being what should be more considered is the length of time a PC is likely to be in a level before advancing and getting something new and how significant that new thing should be. An extra +1 to hit or an ability that sunders worlds?
I don't mind 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 in a World of Warcraft (pre-4e) idea of incremental increases in power until a certain level and then a major boost, which then again meanders up until the next tier. This would allow GM's to really tailor a game and setting without things becoming silly. Imagine a game that spans only levels 1-10, the creatures characters could face will be uber-powerful and a direct dpr race will end badly for the PC's every time. Forgotten Realms is a prime example to power gone mad. Every second person is a Archmage so are PC's really needed to save the day? Contrast that with Dark Suns where, while tougher than normal PC's, power rests in only a few (Sorcerer Kings/Queens) and is nigh on unassailable. Likewise the Ravenloft setting.
What I wouldn't want to feel is short changed in any given tier. If it take a PC 5 sessions to gain levels from say 18-20th it should take 5 sessions to go from 8-10th.
S.
What range doesn't really matter, OD&D levels went to 36, in 1e random (e.g. 29th for a Magic User), 2e gave us the 20 level limit which was carried through into 3e/3.5e/PF, and of course 4e gave us 30 levels. MERP had 10 levels, Rolemaster 50. My point being what should be more considered is the length of time a PC is likely to be in a level before advancing and getting something new and how significant that new thing should be. An extra +1 to hit or an ability that sunders worlds?
Original D&D had named levels to a point (9th for Fighting man, 11th for Magic User, 8th for Cleric, 10th for Thief etc.) but no level limits per se. The tables went up until they stopped and then it became x experience per additional level. Hit dice stopped at level 8-10 for the original classes, they received a fixed number of hp per level after that. Some classes had a level cap (Assassin - 14th, Monk - 17th, Druid - 14th iirc but the levels I listed might be 1E) and their HD went up with the level. AD&D (1E) was the same way. The tables stopped at given levels but there wasn't a hard cap except for the previously named classes. You just followed the rules and extrapolated on. Mind you I never had to, but it was interesting for legendary and high level NPCs. And of course Demi-humans had level limits which varied by race and went up steadily from edition to edition (0E, 1E, 2E) until they were eliminated in 3E. Basic D&D had level limits in the BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia versions and the groupings were named (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal) by the set... I'm not sure if there was a hard cap because I never played basic although I have them (I went 0E, 1E, 2E, 3E etc.). They were just reading material. The closest to the tier idea before 4th level was, I believe, the BECMI / Rules Encyclopedia level clusters. There were special rules for classes as they hit specific levels. Then of course, there was the Epic Level handbook for 3E.
Oh well, back to grading papers...
|
|
The tables went up until they stopped and then it became x experience per additional level. Hit dice stopped at level 8-10 for the original classes, they received a fixed number of hp per level after that.
But the increase in abilities in 1E (that you are referring to) went past the HD caps, a Magic-Users HD topped at 10th but their spell progression didn't stop until 29th level.
All of this shows that level caps or amounts are independent as long as the time spent in each level can be adjusted (as per the XP tables in PF) and the 'tier' perhaps as a different rate of power in increase. You could say that the variable XP tables of PF achieve this, but all they really do is lengthen the time between levels - what having variable power increases according to tier would do is provide a different style of game per tier.
S.
|
|
Well, ultimately I like the 3E style the most where it was presented at 1-20, but within those leves at some point the game changed because of the types of abilities that where gained, such as teleport of raising the dead. However, with Epic rules, there was always room to grow and change, still, but without preset level limits, per se. A group of mid level characters could still take down a high level character. Non-Epic players coud stll defeat an Epic level threat, potentually.
Can a cleric or any class with the "guild thief " background, high dex,and lockpicks open locks/remove traps the same as a thief can?Is the ability to use lockpicks tied to the thief class and the guild thief background? I didnt see anything in the playtest that prohibits this build idea?
|
|
Can a cleric or any class with the "guild thief " background, high dex,and lockpicks open locks/remove traps the same as a thief can?Is the ability to use lockpicks tied to the thief class and the guild thief background? I didnt see anything in the playtest that prohibits this build idea?
I stand to be corrected but I think only Rogues get the Tool Proficiency: Thieves' Tools. This means that only Rogues can carry out tasks that require thieves tools. Perhaps later the Bard might also?
I think this is a great move to my thieves relevant in the game again.
S.
|
|
It's a double edged sword, though. If it's a rogue only thing, than that basically means that somehow has to play a rogue. Now if there is a rogue in the party, that means that the DM needs to put in lots of traps and locked stuff to justify the rogue. So now we have a pretty significant encounter/threat that requires only one class, but also leaves everyone else out of it, or for smaller groups, (or those that might be playing in something like an official play game where parties change all the time) simply unable to proceed. Doing a quick search, I don't see any options besides rogue to get Thieve's Tools Prof.
|
|
It's a double edged sword, though. If it's a rogue only thing, than that basically means that somehow has to play a rogue. Now if there is a rogue in the party, that means that the DM needs to put in lots of traps and locked stuff to justify the rogue. So now we have a pretty significant encounter/threat that requires only one class, but also leaves everyone else out of it, or for smaller groups, (or those that might be playing in something like an official play game where parties change all the time) simply unable to proceed. Doing a quick search, I don't see any options besides rogue to get Thieve's Tools Prof.
Welcome to the world of old school gaming!
Seriously however, simply being unable to proceed would either be bad adventure design or an inexperienced GM. For more years than some players have been alive we proceeded from adventure to adventure with only the Thief being able to open locks or disarm traps.
I can think of many ways other than simply removing the lock/trap from the adventure to have parties without a Rogue to get passed such obstacles. Not to mention the spell casters and their bag-o-tricks.
Not liking only Rogues having this ability is like not liking Wizards because they cast spells and in some cases an encounter may need a spell (like say fly).
S.