# First Impressions?



## Stoat (May 24, 2012)

I'm stuck at work and won't be downloading any playtest documents until this evening.  

Those of you who are more fortunate, what do you think?


----------



## YRUSirius (May 24, 2012)

Nice layout! The spell layout definitely surprised me. No stats, just an effect and a special entry. Everything in prose. VERY nice for starters.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Sir Robilar (May 24, 2012)

Looks fantastic so far. Nice to read, simple and clear. I adore the advantage/disadvantage rules. It reminds me of Ye Olde Gaming company's Wayfarers RPG, where the proficiency system works the same.


----------



## Raith5 (May 24, 2012)

The spells remind of basic D&D, the monsters and equipment remind of 3rd and character sheets remind me of 4th  (sans skills) for some reason.

Good sign I guess!


----------



## YRUSirius (May 24, 2012)

Hm, the dwarven fighter has a d12 hit dice and the elf wizard has a d4 hit dice? Is this because of the race or theme? Because the last L&L article mentioned d6 for wizards and d10 for fighters...

-YRUSirius


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 24, 2012)

Still reading the rules, but I like advantage/disadvantage. The ability modifiers remain the same, which really confuses me as to the Rogue's skill ability mentioned in the last Ro3 article (the math doesn't work, see other thread).


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 24, 2012)

Oh and the rules about rolling hit points and your Constitution - sounds like a really neat trick on paper, but screws high hit die classes? I can't decide.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 24, 2012)

It is interesting.  It mostly appears to be a mix of 3e and 4e combined together.

Hit Dice are pretty much Healing Surges just with more rolling to see how many hitpoints you regain and only able to use them out of combat.  Also you don't need them for spells to heal you.

Armor and Weapons work more like 3e.  However spells use Int or Wis as their attack stat.  Stat modifiers are exactly the same as 3e.

The spells appear to be mostly copied as pasted with very few changes from 3e.

Meanwhile, the whole thing is wrapped in a layer of sentiment that "The game doesn't need exact rules for doing anything other than attacks and damage".  It pretty much says "As the DM, make up DCs for things, you have 6 stats, use whichever stat you think is appropriate for a task or saving throw".


----------



## Raith5 (May 24, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Hm, the dwarven fighter has a d12 hit dice and the elf wizard has a d4 hit dice? Is this because of the race or theme? Because the last L&L article mentioned d6 for wizards and d10 for fighters...
> 
> -YRUSirius




On page 4 of how to play it says your hp are your con score plus your hit dice roll or your con bonus (whichever is higher)


----------



## Kinak (May 24, 2012)

Overall, the rules have a very OD&D feel to me.

Mapping saves and skills as attribute checks seems pretty solid to me, very old school. 

I'll admit I'm a little concerned about their flat math. You need big bonuses to make a difference when your random factor is a d20.

The advantage/disadvantage (roll twice, take the better/worse) mechanic is nice. I'm looking forward to seeing that in play. Much more gratifying than a small bonus and doesn't complicate things by stacking.

Their line on buying magical items is up my alley (i.e. you can't).

Not sure I'm sold on their approach to rituals (exchanging components for memorization), but it's certainly worth taking for a spin.

Scaling spell effects based on the target's hit points makes "save or suck" way more interactive with the rest of the party. Very cool.

The spell effects look perfect too. They're short and easy to understand without being too jargony.

Overall, lots of simplification. It should be fun, but I'm sure it still has a lot to hammer out.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## Kelvor Ravenstar (May 24, 2012)

I like the inclusion of Combat, Habitat and Society, and Legends and Lore with the monster entries, but I dislike the formatting of the monster stat blocks. Its very much a return to 3e style monsters, with special abilities separated from the stat block, and a few of the monsters using the spells from the rules.

The character sheets are alright for showing you wear they got each piece of the character, but for actual play I think they're going to be less useful. For instance, the rogue's thieflike skills are on the second page, since they come from his scheme.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 24, 2012)

Raith5 said:


> On page 4 of how to play it says your hp are your con score plus your hit dice roll or your con bonus (whichever is higher)



You're talking about the total hit points. I'm talking about the hit dice. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 24, 2012)

I absolutely love the 'Intoxicated' condition, if you haven't read it..


----------



## Raith5 (May 24, 2012)

I like the feel of the monsters, equipment, the skills information (forbidden lore FTW!)

But I think it going to take me awhile to get used to spells. I am just used to seeing casters roll their attacks. 

The fighter looks an 4th ed essentials fighter - which I am not sure sure is a good thing!

Not sure about advantage or hit dice


----------



## Ainamacar (May 24, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Oh and the rules about rolling hit points and your Constitution - sounds like a really neat trick on paper, but screws high hit die classes? I can't decide.




I really like this part, it's a good compromise between 4e and earlier editions.  And using the averages will be dirt simple for anyone who hates rolling.  I'd even let different players in the same campaign choose what they do at character creation.

I don't think it will screw the high HD classes.  At 20th level (chosen only to be illustrative) a 10 Con character rolling a d6 will average 80 hp, but would average 130 hp if he had 20 Con instead.  If that same character were a d10 class he would average 120 hp and 170 hp, respectively.  Those are numbers I can live with.  I'll probably take a look at the confidence intervals later, to see what profoundly lucky or unlucky rolls would do, and how often we could expect to see them.

I misread the rules in my haste, and calculated the wrong thing.  For the 20 Con characters the correct values are 123.3bar and 150, and the lower HD creatures do in fact gain more, both in terms of total additional hp from high the same high Con score, and from an even larger than before percent increase of their total hp.  These also make it more difficult to use the averages instead, since they will not, in general, be an integer or half integer.

Thanks to Szatany for pointing this out.


----------



## Raith5 (May 24, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> You're talking about the total hit points. I'm talking about the hit dice.
> 
> -YRUSirius




Ah. Good question. Maybe you spotted an error.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 24, 2012)

Btw no boxes for 8th and 9th level spells on the character sheets. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## Reaper Steve (May 24, 2012)

I'm glad to see people have the Packet. The email I received with the link to download it instead takes me to the custhelp page. I wonder what went wrong and more importantly, how long it will take to fix. They don't start taking phone calls for another hour.


----------



## Daztur (May 24, 2012)

And Command has been returned to its rightful state. All is well with the world.






Seriously, I'm loving the number of no-roll things, little bits of awesome that you can just DO without having to roll a damn d20 for them, stuff like dwarves being immune to poison end of story. As much as I love 1ed having the dwarf poison bonus be equal to Con score / 3.5 is a bit insane. I'll take that  over a +2 bonus to in X situation any day of the ing week.


----------



## Daztur (May 24, 2012)

How to get file:
Go to the customer service tab that says My Stuff, then go back to the search thingie and search for D&D next playtest and then it shows up.


----------



## tlantl (May 24, 2012)

there seems to be some little discrepancies between the information in the articles on the web site and the information in the packets.

I was under the impression that hit dice and extended rests meant that injuries could last for a few days, but the extended rest rules contradict that. Hit dice for the classes are off too. 

It looks like your average first level character is going to walk all over the monsters in the module too the hit point totals and damage output is very high especially compared with the monsters of the same level.

The low magic bunch is going to hate the herbalism feat, and the cantrips. I was a bit shocked by the numbers.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (May 24, 2012)

They did say that PC hit points were inflated a bit because monster design wasn't finished.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 24, 2012)

I don't think that this is necessarily bad: If you really want to challenge your PCs just throw more monsters at them for the Diablo feel. 

Another little tidbit: The pregen clerics cast 1 level 1 spell less than the wizard (2 instead of 3).

And no ability increases within the first 3 levels (we might see the first on level 4 as in 3rd or 4th edition). No surprise there, one could say - though I was looking forward to ability score increases as the main means of improving a character.

-YRUSirius


----------



## vagabundo (May 24, 2012)

I like over all:

- Rituals have been folded into spells. So you can memorise it or spend the dough and take your time.
- Race/Class/Background/Theme seem to work well together and give you a bunch of interesting options.
- At will magic (cantrips) are interesting and get a thumbs up.
- Monster formatting is back to the bad old days. Spell lists on NPC casters. (Boo Hiss)
- The Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic (rolling two dice) is a very core mechanic used everywhere and I'm excited about testing it out.
- Weapon lists have some special properties and new groups (the Finesse list of weapons allows you to use dex instead of  str for attacks). Very nice. Am happy. Would like to see some more special properties brough in from 4e.


Overall its got some great stuff. I like it's moxy.


----------



## slobster (May 24, 2012)

The game is similar enough to your standard d20 that I can jump right in, and where changes occur they are interesting and usable. Can't wait to get to playing.

One thing I noticed that's pretty quirky: when fighting invisible enemies, it doesn't hurt to be drunk and frightened. So if your character is a cowardly lush, you'll have problems in most situations but will finally bring the pain when your party goes up against those invisible stalkers .


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 24, 2012)

Ok, maybe someone can check this.. theory.. of mine:

Characters all use the standard array.
You get +1 to a stat from your race (and this varies with subrace it would seem).
You get +1 to a stat from your class.
Humans get +1 to every stat (this is the controversial bit).


----------



## Ellington (May 24, 2012)

I think all of the characters are awesome, except the fighter who is okay I guess.

I like the overall layout of everything, it's written in a straightforward language but it's not too dry.

I don't like rolling for HP.

I like what I've seen in the Bestiary so far. Goblins and their chiefs look like a lot of fun.

My biggest complaint is that a lot of actions you can do have no way of failing. A ray of frost reduces a creatures speed to 0 if it hits? What the hell, man.


----------



## slobster (May 24, 2012)

I also find it humurous that, in the early beta playtest where we don't even know how you calculate hp, they decided it was worth including four pages of mundane equipment, including weights and costs at the AdventureMart.

I guess my group will be playtesting whether those merchant scales are balanced!


----------



## YRUSirius (May 24, 2012)

The spell attack bonuses on the wizard elf (+6; should be +5 = 3 Int + 2 magical attacks) and the human cleric (+4; should be +6 = 4 Wis + 2 magical attacks) seem off. Did I miss something?

-YRUSirius


----------



## Kzach (May 24, 2012)

I have to say that I'm initially impressed. I can definitely see old-school influences blended with new and neither seem out of place which, for me, is a big hurdle overcome especially at such an early stage. It indicates that they genuinely have a grasp on what they need to do in order to pull off the promises of uniting play-styles which I think is the biggest challenge of a what they've turned into a very challenging edition makeover.


----------



## Scribble (May 24, 2012)

I see the whole regain HP and HD after an extended rest thing causing a divide.


----------



## darjr (May 24, 2012)

I don't like that a long rest gives you back all of your lost hit points.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 24, 2012)

Having read through all the rules and character sheets now, I'm liking what I see. Most obvious is the difference between classes and the overall flatness of the maths.

Current reservations: Hitpoint determination, dis/advantage interaction with spells that don't require an attack roll, similarly with the Rogue's take 10 ability, also the 'max all healing' feat would appear to be a little powerful.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (May 24, 2012)

Reaper Steve said:


> I'm glad to see people have the Packet. The email I received with the link to download it instead takes me to the custhelp page. I wonder what went wrong and more importantly, how long it will take to fix. They don't start taking phone calls for another hour.




Still happening to me.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 24, 2012)

Well, my first impression is that the download system isn't working for me.

My second impression is that the commentors on the WotC forum are whiny little brats.  Not like the sophisticates here at ENWorld.


----------



## Animal (May 24, 2012)

Due to How to play guide, PCs have advantage on attacks when attacking from hide.
On Halfling Rogue Charlist we see an Ambusher feat that looks pretty much redundant to me.. 

Am i misinterpreting something or did i catch a bug here?


----------



## ren1999 (May 24, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> The spell attack bonuses on the wizard elf (+6; should be +5 = 3 Int + 2 magical attacks) and the human cleric (+4; should be +6 = 4 Wis + 2 magical attacks) seem off. Did I miss something?
> -YRUSirius




Correct me if I'm wrong everyone, but I believe Wizards gave me permission to talk about specific roll mechanics anywhere people would listen. 

I really like what I am reading. I think that the Skills overhaul is wonderful.

I noticed a few things that need clarifying.

I love these ability based "contest" rolls. But don't understand them. 
a melee attack roll is 1d20+str mod vs ac
a finesse attack roll is 1d20+dex mod vs ac
what is a ranged attack roll?
a cleric prayer attack roll is 1d20+wis mod vs the target's 1d20++??
the DC to resist a cleric prayer is 10+wis. But what is the target's save roll?
a wizard spell attack roll is 1d20+int mod vs ??
the DC to resist a spell is 10+int mod. What is the target's save?
What is this spell attack+2? Where does it come from?

Since level-up information is included in each character packet -- what are the ability score level-ups? I'm assuming that the 1/2 level addition to all attack and defense modifiers has been scrapped. So attack bonuses must be based on ability score level-ups. I can live with that. Or am I misunderstanding it?

Overall, I'm very thrilled at this initial intended direction.


----------



## Kinak (May 24, 2012)

I have to say: There's old school and then there's "this will be easier to follow if I pull out my copy of B2" old school.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## hayek (May 24, 2012)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Still happening to me.




me as well... c'mon Wizards... please don't ruin all my excitement...


----------



## Piratecat (May 24, 2012)

hayek said:


> me as well... c'mon Wizards... please don't ruin all my excitement...




You can now head straight here to get it:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Playtest

EDIT: never mind, this is signing up and not a direct file link.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 24, 2012)

ren1999 said:


> I love these ability based "contest" rolls. But don't understand them.
> a melee attack roll is 1d20+str mod vs ac
> a finesse attack roll is 1d20+dex mod vs ac
> what is a ranged attack roll?
> ...




What do you not understand? We arm wrestle, both rolling a Strength check. Whoever rolls highest, wins, and if we tie.. we agonise and try again.

Ranged attacks are Dex mod vs AC.
Cleric and Wizard attacks target AC.
Saving throws against spells are specified in the spell descriptions.

I think the +2 spell attack bonus is to make it easier to hit with magic.



ren1999 said:


> Since level-up information is included in each character packet -- what are the ability score level-ups? I'm assuming that the 1/2 level addition to all attack and defense modifiers has been scrapped. So attack bonuses must be based on ability score level-ups. I can live with that. Or am I misunderstanding it?




I believe the math is completely flat (give or take later increases). Over the three levels we see, no attack bonuses or skill bonuses or saving throws or AC increase.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 24, 2012)

Animal said:


> Due to How to play guide, PCs have advantage on attacks when attacking from hide.
> On Halfling Rogue Charlist we see an Ambusher feat that looks pretty much redundant to me..
> 
> Am i misinterpreting something or did i catch a bug here?




I noticed this, but haven't resolved it yet - possibly two drafts are at odds here. Rogue sneak attack damage seems to increase rapidly, but there are no flanking rules, so I guess you aren't supposed to get Advantage that often?


----------



## Dausuul (May 24, 2012)

First impressions:


This looks like a hybrid of 3E and 4E. Not as much old-school influence as I was hoping for. Ah well.
Full hp recovery after a night's rest is a 4E-ism that's not going to go over well at all, I don't think. Certainly not with me.
Intoxicated grants DR? What gives? This reminds me of my days back in the '90s coding on MUDs, where alcohol was a healing potion that gave you attack penalties. While it's mildly amusing, the idea that adventurers have an incentive to get wasted before going into combat is stupid. I could see this effect as a feat in a "drunken master" theme, or a dwarven racial ability. It should not be a universal mechanic.
Hey, we have rules for leveling up from 1 to 3! You don't get to make any choices, but we have more of a level range than expected.
Character sheets nice and compact. Good to see.
No spell disruption rules in evidence.
Notice something that _doesn't_ happen when you level up from 1 to 3? Neither your attack rolls, nor your defenses, nor your spell DCs get better. I guess they're serious about flattening the math. I approve.
100% prose descriptions for spells. I heartily endorse this.

More as I read it (haven't gotten to the bestiary yet, and only skimmed the characters).


----------



## Reaper Steve (May 24, 2012)

STill have to sign up and wait for an email, which may or may not have the same faulty link
I'm still waiting for my second email...


----------



## Lord Vangarel (May 24, 2012)

Have to say getting hold of this playtest is a nightmare.

It's not rocket science and should be easier than this.


----------



## Reaper Steve (May 24, 2012)

Double post, sorry


----------



## Reaper Steve (May 24, 2012)

Ugh, triple post. 3G connection my @$$.


----------



## Drakhar (May 24, 2012)

So am I the only one to notice that almost every single weapon attack roll is off from what the rules document says the damage dice are?


----------



## ren1999 (May 24, 2012)

Drakhar said:


> So am I the only one to notice that almost every single weapon attack roll is off from what the rules document says the damage dice are?




I noticed it. I see that the damage is based on strength modifiers but I can't figure out where the attack rolls are getting an extra +2 or more. From where? I can't really put anything out for a play-test until I explain the math.


----------



## Drakhar (May 24, 2012)

ren1999 said:


> I noticed it. I see that the damage is based on strength modifiers but I can't figure out where the attack rolls are getting an extra +2 or more. From where? I can't really put anything out for a play-test until I explain the math.



I believe that it has to do with weapon training, I.E if you have training in the weapon, you get a +2 bonus. My main notice is that all the weapon damages themselves seem to be upped a die from the rule book, and it looks like they've brought back double strength with two handed weapons, atleast that's how it appears with the fighter, I don't see the rule anywhere


----------



## Drakhar (May 24, 2012)

ren1999 said:


> I noticed it. I see that the damage is based on strength modifiers but I can't figure out where the attack rolls are getting an extra +2 or more. From where? I can't really put anything out for a play-test until I explain the math.



I believe that it has to do with weapon training, I.E if you have training in the weapon, you get a +2 bonus. My main notice is that all the weapon damages themselves seem to be upped a die from the rule book, and it looks like they've brought back double strength with two handed weapons, atleast that's how it appears with the fighter, I don't see the rule anywhere


----------



## ren1999 (May 24, 2012)

Drakhar said:


> I believe that it has to do with weapon training, I.E if you have training in the weapon, you get a +2 bonus. My main notice is that all the weapon damages themselves seem to be upped a die from the rule book, and it looks like they've brought back double strength with two handed weapons, atleast that's how it appears with the fighter, I don't see the rule anywhere




O.k. Yeah. I'm seeing the increased damage by 1dice. Perhaps it is to decrease the rounds of the encounter to a nice number so that the game goes faster. 

Who was it on EN world that had such a nice "contest" ability chart chart?

melee attack = str vs ac
thrown weapon = str vs ac?
ranged touch = dex vs dex
spell attack = int vs con/dex/int or wis
save dc vs spell = 10+caster int vs con/dex/int or wis
prayer attack = wis vs con/dex/int or wis?


----------



## Arytiss (May 24, 2012)

tlantl said:


> there seems to be some little discrepancies between the information in the articles on the web site and the information in the packets.
> 
> I was under the impression that hit dice and extended rests meant that injuries could last for a few days, but the extended rest rules contradict that. Hit dice for the classes are off too.
> 
> ...



I suspect that the information for this playtest packet was compiled a couple of weeks ago. The articles we've been seeing have in all probability been discussing more recent ideas the design team have had and thus are yet to be properly incorporated in to the test packet. Give it a couple more weeks and we might see them added.


----------



## Stormonu (May 24, 2012)

Having now read over the docs for all of two hours, my impressions are as follows:

1) Kudos, Mearls & Co., this looks like a romping good time to come.  I like the informal tone of the document.

2) Like Advantage/Disadvantage and how "aid another" now works

3) Am I missing something on heavy armor?  It really seems like  medium armor had a great advantage (AC + 1/2 Dex mod) vs. heavy armor (flat AC, speed penalty)

4) Yay! A fairly comprehensive equipment list!

5) I thought spells weren't supposed to scale in this version.  Why does magic missile get more missiles at higher level?

6) I'm leery of the dwarf and elf immunities; would have preferred "advantage" and a +3 bonus.  Also seems to be a lot of immunities among creatures.  Will have to see how this works in play.

7) Yay!  While we get advanced monsters, we're not seeing verb/adj + noun names for subtypes.

8)  Not liking the format of spells.  Feels like a word hunt, like reading through the 2E Monsterous Manual entries.

9) Legend and Lore entries in the monster sections make me giddy.  Well done!

10)  No feats, no powers...very interesting

11)  Monster blocks are very straitfoward and don't waste words.  Abilities are neatly blocked off.  Odd that spell abilities aren't written out, like they would have been in 4E (but I generally like it better with just listing the spell)  Not fond of the orc information in Combat/Society, don't get a sense of them other than "there're a horde of butchers who pour out of caves to do bad things to others".  A little disappointed monsters don't have hit point range listed instead of an absolute value.

Overall, the playtest looks very rule-adverse and informal.  I get the impression they are seeing how much they can scale back on the rules-speak and still make the game playable.  It sounds very OD&Dish.  I'd like to see a hair more formality as I indicated above (mainly in the spell blocks).

This feels like a very nice blending of B/X, 2E and 3E, with a taste of 4E thrown in for flavor.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 24, 2012)

Having played 4E for several years now, there's a lot of formatting in the document that just feels annoying, but which I probably have to just get used to again.  The prose spell descriptions for one.  Here are some other red flags that I noticed upon a single read-thru that turn my nose up a little, but which might not be as bad as they seem on initial sniff:

The weapon table.  And having "duplicate weapon effects" with such disparate costs.

The fact that you have a Club, Hammer, and Mace all do 1d6 bludgeoning damage except the Mace costs 6 gp and weighs 8 lbs and the club costs 5 sp and weights 3 lbs makes me wonder why anyone would use a Mace?  Had there been a special property to make the Mace worth more than the Club, then fine (like the Hammer is Light and can be thrown).  But right now, there's no point of having the Mace.  Same thing with the Pick and Trident-- same damage, except one costs 8 gp and the other 15 gp.  Which makes one of the two pointless.

Perhaps there are more advanced rules that will actually give something to these 'less than' weapons... but at the basic level, it just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm also not crazy about the insane jumps in price on the armor table either.  The fact that fighters were supposed to be the most heavily armored, and yet a rogue with a +3 dex mod can get a 17 AC for 75 gp while a fighter with no dex mod has to spend 1,500 gp for the same AC?  That's insane.  Or the fact that Studded Leather gives you 13 + dex for 25 gp, but Ringmail gives you 13 + half dex for *35 gp*?  So basically you're spending 10 extra gold for armor that only half as much dex bonus.

It's these kind of illogical things that I was so glad they eliminated (for the most part) in 4E, that I will really hate to go back to.  Because they make absolutely no sense and basically remove certain armors and weapons from ever being taken because there are better options available at every turn.


----------



## Nebulous (May 24, 2012)

not liking the 8 hour rest =  full HP recovery.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 24, 2012)

Drakhar said:


> So am I the only one to notice that almost every single weapon attack roll is off from what the rules document says the damage dice are?




Different drafts of the characters vs. the rules I guess?



ren1999 said:


> I noticed it. I see that the damage is based on strength modifiers but I can't figure out where the attack rolls are getting an extra +2 or more. From where? I can't really put anything out for a play-test until I explain the math.




The Fighter's class ability gives him +2 on all weapon attack rolls.



ren1999 said:


> Who was it on EN world that had such a nice "contest" ability chart chart?
> 
> melee attack = str vs ac
> thrown weapon = str vs ac?
> ...




I made an ability vs. ability success chart I could dig up if you want. The rest of your post makes no sense - have you read the rules? There's no ranged touch attack and spell attacks target AC, same as weapons.


----------



## Herschel (May 24, 2012)

Apparently their deifinition of "Now" is quite different from everyone else's. It keeps sending me to the sign-up page, even from the link in my e-mail or the home page.  This is irritating, to say the least.


----------



## Roland55 (May 24, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I absolutely love the 'Intoxicated' condition, if you haven't read it..




I seem to have lost the ability to grant XP ... but I certainly agree with you.  Fun.


----------



## Dragoslav (May 24, 2012)

No scythes? Wtf? Heads will roll.


----------



## Szatany (May 24, 2012)

Ainamacar said:


> I really like this part, it's a good compromise between 4e and earlier editions.  And using the averages will be dirt simple for anyone who hates rolling.  I'd even let different players in the same campaign choose what they do at character creation.



If con bonus is an integral part of a roll, I don't see how using averages is simple. It will, after all, produce different results.



Ainamacar said:


> I don't think it will screw the high HD classes.  At 20th level (chosen only to be illustrative) a 10 Con character rolling a d6 will average 80 hp, but would average 130 hp if he had 20 Con instead.  If that same character were a d10 class he would average 120 hp and 170 hp, respectively.  Those are numbers I can live with.  I'll probably take a look at the confidence intervals later, to see what profoundly lucky or unlucky rolls would do, and how often we could expect to see them.



High HD classes get less from their CON than low HD classes. I hope that this is something that wotc noticed and adjusted power levels of classes accordingly.
And your numbers are little off. A 20th level d10 class will not have as many as 170 hp, if the rolls are average. More like 150. 
Look at this table, one point of difference in CON bonus gives d6 class from 4 to 34 HP across 20 levels. The same amount of difference gives a d10 class from 2 to 20 HP (that's almost half).


----------



## Piratecat (May 24, 2012)

Roland55 said:


> I seem to have lost the ability to grant XP ... but I certainly agree with you.  Fun.




Turned off temporarily to reduce server load.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 24, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The weapon table.  And having "duplicate weapon effects" with such disparate costs.




It would be better if weapons had more unique properties, but if they are going for simple, I see no problem with duplication. Sometimes it's a matter of aesthetics, or in the club/mace example, what you can make trivially from a bit of tree vs. requires smithing.



DEFCON 1 said:


> I'm also not crazy about the insane jumps in price on the armor table either.  The fact that fighters were supposed to be the most heavily armored, and yet a rogue with a +3 dex mod can get a 17 AC for 75 gp while a fighter with no dex mod has to spend 1,500 gp for the same AC?  That's insane.  Or the fact that Studded Leather gives you 13 + dex for 25 gp, but Ringmail gives you 13 + half dex for *35 gp*?  So basically you're spending 10 extra gold for armor that only half as much dex bonus.




So I did some calculation and yes, there is a serious problem with this armour table:

Armour	Dex Mod	0	1	2	3	4	5

Leather	12+D	12	13	14	15	16	17
Studded	13+D	13	14	15	16	17	18
Chain Shirt	14+D	14	15	16	17	18	19
Mithral	15+D	15	16	17	18	19	20

Ring	13+D/2	13	13	14	14	15	15
Scale	14+D/2	14	14	15	15	16	16
Splint	15+D/2	15	15	16	16	17	17
Dragon	16+D/2	16	16	17	17	18	18

Chain	15	15	15	15	15	15	15
Banded	16	16	16	16	16	16	16
Plate	17	17	17	17	17	17	17
Adamant	18	18	18	18	18	18	18


Heavy shields can make up the difference for both Medium and Heavy armours, but I don't see a reason not to use one in Light armour either (if you are a Dex Fighter, say)? There's no reason to choose a Light Shield, as usual. The costs are.. not helping.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 24, 2012)

Aesthetic choices are fine if there's no mechanical disparity between them.  But if a starting character only has X amount of gold to spend on equipment... there's absolutely no reason why they'd buy a mace rather than a club.  Even if the mace was more "cleric-y" for example... that cleric would put that extra 5.5 gold to good use in getting a few more belt pouches and vials.  That cleric of Pelor will certainly want those vials when making up their antitoxins and healing potions.

I only hope they just cut and pasted the 3.5 armor, weapon, and equipment charts without having done any real work on them, just to that DMs would have something to reference when the PCs returned to town.  Because they are kind of lame as they stand (in addition to not actually matching up to what the character sheets list in many places.)


----------



## ArmoredSaint (May 24, 2012)

My first impression after an initial read-through is that heavy armour seems gimped. 

In fact, ACs seem too low in comparison to some of the slightly tough monsters in the bestiary.

This causes me to worry that having magic armour will be an absolute must when dealing with more powerful monsters at higher levels, which was something that I thought they were trying to avoid.

I hope that they build in some sort of "feat tree" or class feature for Fighters, etc. that grant a bonus to AC in heavier armour, or else I foresee the magic item dependence issue cropping up again.  Or they could just raise the AC of the mundane armours a point or two.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 24, 2012)

Scribble said:


> I see the whole regain HP and HD after an extended rest thing causing a divide.




I was prepared for the rest mechanics, I knew they would be similar to what was presented and they are easy enough to adjust. 

What I wasn't expecting is the new wand of cure light wounds AKA the herbalism feat. 

Frankly the rest mechanics AND a cleric are just icing on top of herbalism. 

The rest mechanic I see being a factor until 2nd or 3rd level. Once the cash flow is good an herbalist can crank out 24 1d8 healing potions per 8 hour workday for 600gp. 

24d8 of healing before needing to use any rest.


----------



## Ainamacar (May 24, 2012)

Szatany said:


> If con bonus is an integral part of a roll, I don't see how using averages is simple. It will, after all, produce different results.
> 
> 
> High HD classes get less from their CON than low HD classes. I hope that this is something that wotc noticed and adjusted power levels of classes accordingly.
> ...




This is what I get for skimming.   Yes, you are correct.  My numbers would be correct if one rerolled until getting at least the minimum result, which is what I thought that section said. (And which would distribute the benefit to each class equally in terms of raw hp gained).  In fact, for 20 Con the correct averages are 123.3bar and 150 and the average hit points are not as simple, and the low HD classes have a greater advantage than the HD classes, calculated both as the raw amount of hp gained and that amount as a percent of their expected values without a Con modifier.

Mea culpa, I'd XP you but that's off at the moment.


----------



## Mengu (May 24, 2012)

First overall impression, this looks better than the playtest at DDXP. So, it's good to see there is progress.

First eye popping impression, holy smokes, everyone needs a cleric of Pelor in their group.

First impression on spell layout... I don't like it. I want the crunchy bits to stand out at a glance. It all seemed too wordy.

Regarding the damage die inconsistency, it could be that proficiency with a weapon gives you +2 bonus to attack and a bump in damage die. But that seems a bit unorthodox. I'd rather see the damage dice listed that's going to be used 99% of the time, and have them maybe state that there is a reduction in damage dice if you're not proficient. It is however more likely there is a version mismatch between the document and the character sheets. Monsters seem to be using the dice from the HtP doc.

There are a few other errors I think. The wizard's staff should be +3 attack, 1d8+1 damage. It is a finesse weapon. Similarly, cleric of Pelor's Staff should be +4 attack, 1d8+2 damage. Strangely, 1d8 is the correct dice per the HtP document.

The fighter seems to have an extra +2 damage from somewhere, perhaps it's a bonus for wielding a two-handed weapon. Also I'm curious if he can apply weapon focus bonus to Reaper damage. Seems unclear.

[sblock=Random thought...]Dwarves can't get drunk. That should put an end to all drinking contests. Not to mention dwarven brews just became quite lethal to non-dwarves, because they can put whatever they want in it. When a dwarf says they drink drow poison for breakfast, they might actually mean that literally.[/sblock]


----------



## ArmoredSaint (May 24, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> So I did some calculation and yes, there is a serious problem with this armour table:



It looks like a depressing return to 3e's dominance of the Armour Class stat by characters relying on light armour + Dex Mod, while heavy armour wearers get left out in the cold. 


What happened to promises that the Fighter (usually a heavy armour wearer) would have the best Armour Class?


----------



## ArmoredSaint (May 24, 2012)

Also, how is the Cleric of Moradin getting such a high AC?


----------



## Psikus (May 24, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Or the fact that Studded Leather gives you 13 + dex for 25 gp, but Ringmail gives you 13 + half dex for *35 gp*?  So basically you're spending 10 extra gold for armor that only half as much dex bonus.




It's a bit situational, but the Ringmail beats Studded leather for characters with Dex lower than 10 (since Dex penalties are also halved).


----------



## Stormonu (May 24, 2012)

ArmoredSaint said:


> My first impression after an initial read-through is that heavy armour seems gimped.
> 
> In fact, ACs seem too low in comparison to some of the slightly tough monsters in the bestiary.




I'm already contemplating a house rule - Light Armor grants an opponent Damage Advantage (roll 2 damage dice, take the best); Heavy Armor grants an opponent Damage Disadvantage (roll 2 damage dice, take the worst).

It'll be easy to apply to PCs, might not be so easy with monsters.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (May 24, 2012)

Stormonu said:


> I'm already contemplating a house rule - Light Armor grants an opponent Damage Advantage (roll 2 damage dice, take the best); Heavy Armor grants an opponent Damage Disadvantage (roll 2 damage dice, take the worst).
> 
> It'll be easy to apply to PCs, might not be so easy with monsters.




That is _delightful!_  I love it.

It's probably too much to hope for that something that awesome would make it into the final rules, though...


----------



## SageofMusic (May 24, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Aesthetic choices are fine if there's no mechanical disparity between them.  But if a starting character only has X amount of gold to spend on equipment... there's absolutely no reason why they'd buy a mace rather than a club.  Even if the mace was more "cleric-y" for example... that cleric would put that extra 5.5 gold to good use in getting a few more belt pouches and vials.  That cleric of Pelor will certainly want those vials when making up their antitoxins and healing potions.
> 
> I only hope they just cut and pasted the 3.5 armor, weapon, and equipment charts without having done any real work on them, just to that DMs would have something to reference when the PCs returned to town.  Because they are kind of lame as they stand (in addition to not actually matching up to what the character sheets list in many places.)




If you think about it, what is the difference between a club and a mace in real life? In all honesty, both do the same amount of damage to a body, and both are similarly easy to use. The only real difference is in the material. Therefore, as a house rule, decide that clubs have a chance to break when used on heavy armor (or a bulky carapace) while maces don't.


----------



## Melkor (May 24, 2012)

darjr said:


> I don't like that a long rest gives you back all of your lost hit points.




Yeah, out of everything in the playtest rules, this is the one thing I can point to now and say I really do not like.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 24, 2012)

I just don't understand how the fighter's attack value with the greataxe is being calculated. Why is it twice his strength modifier?


----------



## quindia (May 24, 2012)

The regaining all of your HP thing may have changed since this doc was typed up because Mearle's post earlier this week specifically stated that didn't happen...

Overall, I am very happy after reading through the material!


----------



## Vikingkingq (May 24, 2012)

Quick question regarding Advantage and statuses and various sneaking things:

If a status gives a creature disadvantage, does that disadvantage in turn give advantage to the person fighting the creature?  I'm thinking of something like a creature being Blinded/Frightened/Intoxicated - is that creature open to Sneak Attack? It doesn't seem that way as written, but it makes sense. If I throw sand in your eyes and you can't see me, or if you're hammered so that you see three rogues, or you're running away in a blind panic, it should be easy to put a dagger or arrow in your back. 

Also, it seems logical that if being Deafened makes sneaking an auto-success, the same should probably happen with Blinded, no?

And as someone who loves playing rogues, I really wish stealth incorporated a simple line of sight mechanic, since cover is a sometimes thing.


----------



## Dragoslav (May 24, 2012)

Vikingkingq said:


> Quick question regarding Advantage and statuses and various sneaking things:
> 
> If a status gives a creature disadvantage, does that disadvantage in turn give advantage to the person fighting the creature?  I'm thinking of something like a creature being Blinded/Frightened/Intoxicated - is that creature open to Sneak Attack? It doesn't seem that way as written, but it makes sense. If I throw sand in your eyes and you can't see me, or if you're hammered so that you see three rogues, or you're running away in a blind panic, it should be easy to put a dagger or arrow in your back.
> 
> Also, it seems logical that if being Deafened makes sneaking an auto-success, the same should probably happen with Blinded, no?



1) It doesn't specify that the target grants advantage, so no. However, a stunned or paralyzed target does specifically grant advantage to any attacker.

2) Maybe, but it's probably easier for a not usually sneaky person (like a warrior in plate mail) to stay out of sight of a deafened person than to not make noise while sneaking up on a blind person.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 24, 2012)

An attacker IS kinda like invisible to a blind defender so one could argue that the attacker has attack advantage because he's invisible to his target. Thoughts?

-YRUSirius


----------



## Stormonu (May 24, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> An attacker IS kinda like invisible to a blind defender so one could argue that the attacker has attack advantage because he's invisible to his target. Thoughts?
> 
> -YRUSirius




This is one thing I think I may like about 5E already.

*It's the DM's call if the attacker get Advantage in that situation, not the rules*


----------



## FinalSonicX (May 24, 2012)

My thoughts after reading a bit:



I don't like some of the immunities presented.
I don't like the overnight healing and hit die mechanic
Herbalism seems crazy overpowered to me
I like backgrounds - those are cool. Character advancement will be interesting I think, if backgrounds inject their flavor throughout a character's lifespan.
Hit points and damage for low level characters seems too high but playtesting will reveal whether or not I'm correct in my feeling.
The drunken condition is amusing but seems to be pretty crazy. IT seems like if you were in mass combat, it would be better to be drunk than sober. That strikes me as strange.
The armor charts seem totally broken - where is the incentive to wear anything other than light or perhaps medium armor?
The weapon charts seem similarly broken - not enough differentiation between weapons. There are too many identical weapons.
Dexterity is still an uberstat from what I can tell - dex fighters are going to be pretty strong! That's a good thing, but I hope strength fighters are similarly useful/powerful.
No disruption of spells or opportunity attacks from movement? That's worrisome and I don't think I like it.
I don't really see the purpose of themes from the ones that are presented - I'm not certain they're worth it so to speak. They feel so bland.
If I'm breaking any rules, mods feel free to edit or remove as necessary. I don't think I mentioned any specifics of anything.


----------



## Vikingkingq (May 24, 2012)

Dragoslav said:


> 1) It doesn't specify that the target grants advantage, so no. However, a stunned or paralyzed target does specifically grant advantage to any attacker.
> 
> 2) Maybe, but it's probably easier for a not usually sneaky person (like a warrior in plate mail) to stay out of sight of a deafened person than to not make noise while sneaking up on a blind person.




1. It might just be my own game theory philosophy, but I prefer combat statuses to be somewhat logical; prone is perfect in this regard, in that hitting the deck makes it harder for you to get by missiles but make it harder for you to dodge someone spitting you with a sword. To take Frightened for an example, it's basically running in a panic; in any battlefield throughout history, running away was the most dangerous time for a soldier, because of how much easier turning your back on your opponent made it for someone to cut you down. 

2. That doesn't make much sense because the rest of the stealth rules make bypassing visual senses harder; unless you make a sound either deliberately or accidentally, you're assumed to have moved silently if you succeeded your check. By contrast, you need cover to avoid visual detection.

What makes this odd is that the rules for what happens when you're detected implicitly include line-of-sight, but nothing else does. Having line-of-sight both before and after would make sense; sneaking up behind someone is the classic sense of sneaking. I could see a mechanic where cover gave a bonus against detection working, since it would make sense that if you're just trying to get past/up close by relying on their back being turned, you're at greater risk if someone turns unexpectedly, whereas if you're moving through trees or behind columns or something, you've got somewhere to hide. 

Alternately, while returning to a split Move Silently/Hide would be bad, I think some sort of  Stealth-while-moving and Stealth-after-my-turn difference would be smart. After all, if I'm trying to sneak up on a guard standing in an empty corridor, what I'm trying to do is just get up to him by staying out of his sight so that I can sap him, so the question is does he turn around or hear me coming. When I've moved my turn, unless I have cover, then I'm standing out in plain sight, and should be spotted.


----------



## whydirt (May 24, 2012)

FinalSonicX said:


> My thoughts after reading a bit:
> 
> 
> I don't really see the purpose of themes from the ones that are presented - I'm not certain they're worth it so to speak. They feel so bland.




My understanding is that Themes are just packaged groups of Feats for people who don't want to pick them individually.  I think they'll work great for people who aren't interested in getting into character generation as a mini-game.


----------



## The Shadow (May 24, 2012)

Wow.  Finally digested the rules, the DM guidelines, the characters, and skimmed the monsters.

My VERY first impression of the rules:  While I liked the dis/advantage thing A LOT, most of the rest was making me go, "Okay, so it's a simplified form of 3e.  Groovy, I guess, but a little meh."  Then I read the spells and the character sheets and my brain nearly exploded with awesome.

The spells are thoroughly old-school.  ME LIKE!  But there's more...

* Turn Undead is a spell!  Just like it should've always been!  It's just that the Channel Divinity class feature (a 4e-ism, I think?  but one I like) can let you cast it a few times for free.  It's just plain better than the 3e version, too.  (I forget off the top of my head how the older versions worked.)

* Am I missing something?  Or are clerics now freakin' spontaneous casters?!  I can't believe nobody's mentioned this yet, and it's AWESOME!  I've always thought they should be.

* The backgrounds and themes are quite evocative, better than I had thought.  The Slayer theme is appropriately terrifying.  The Ambusher feat the rogue has seems completely redundant, as someone already mentioned.  'Forbidden Lore' just oozes gooey fun.

* Some halfling clans are hobbitty, others are kendery, and yet others are Gypsy street gangs.  A clever way to get around all the takes on the race in the past.

* The cleric of Moradin is 3/4 of the way to being a paladin already!  Do we really need the class?  REALLY?  In general, the idea that clerics aren't all priests opens up all sorts of worldbuilding vistas.

* I just about cheered when I saw the 'Improvise' action.   And the GM advice is refreshingly empowering.

* It's a little odd to me that Wis saves are used for illusions, I would have thought Int.  Int saves don't seem like they'll see much use.  Wis saves seem overused generally, why not a Cha save for charm?

Overall, very happy.  I can't wait to try this out!


----------



## Vikingkingq (May 24, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> An attacker IS kinda like invisible to a blind defender so one could argue that the attacker has attack advantage because he's invisible to his target. Thoughts?
> 
> -YRUSirius




Agreed; I just think it should be consistent in the text. 

Stormonu - I do like that, but I'd like consistency at least with the written default conditions, so that the DM's flexibility is applying to creative things that the players think up that the book doesn't have, such as:

"I cut his belt with my dagger so that his pants fall down around his ankles...I got a 17, that hits. Does that slow him down?" 
[DM thinks for a second] "Yeah, he can only shuffle five feet a turn unless he takes a turn to pull up his trousers and try to fix his belt. You find out that the orc is wearing polka-dot smallclothes by the way."


----------



## Grazzt (May 24, 2012)

Nebulous said:


> not liking the 8 hour rest =  full HP recovery.




Me either. First thing I house rule...like now.


----------



## Herschel (May 24, 2012)

So they have hard data showing the 4E Fighter is the most popular class in the game, after signs pointed in every previous edition it was spellcasters, and they take basically everything  that made the Fighter "good" away and turn them in to a wizard caddy by level 3 and think it's a smart idea?


----------



## whydirt (May 24, 2012)

I can't believe that people actually like the spell descriptions in the playtest doc.  All the important information is buried in a heap of prose.  It might make it more enjoyable to read when you're not playing, but it's horrible for referencing in-game and that's more important to me.


----------



## SkidAce (May 24, 2012)

Herschel said:


> So they have hard data showing the 4E Fighter is the most popular class in the game, after signs pointed in every previous edition it was spellcasters, and they take basically everything  that made the Fighter "good" away and turn them in to a wizard caddy by level 3 and think it's a smart idea?




I believe you may have missed where Mr Mearls said that fighter maneuvers and other cool stuff will be along in further iterations of the playtest.

The intent may be to run the basics through the wringer, then add in stuff as they go.


----------



## Estlor (May 24, 2012)

In regards to the comment about the Lurker feat being redundant: It's not.

In this particular case, the rogue can still attack with advantage even if he/she has to move and is no longer hidden as a result.

So, basically, instead of having to STAY hidden to attack with advantage, they get advantage on the first attack no matter what.


----------



## Vikingkingq (May 24, 2012)

Herschel said:


> So they have hard data showing the 4E Fighter is the most popular class in the game, after signs pointed in every previous edition it was spellcasters, and they take basically everything  that made the Fighter "good" away and turn them in to a wizard caddy by level 3 and think it's a smart idea?




I'm not seeing that, necessarily, although I will admit that the pregen fighter isn't as obviously interesting as some of the others. The downside is that I think they did too good a job on the melee cleric in comparison to the fighter, where the Defender feat and Hold the Line allow for some strategic tanking, but I'm guessing the fighter is more of an offensive whirlwind-style build. 

The fighter has Reaper, and will get Fighter's Surge, and Cleave, which I see as a sign that the fighter's combat is distinct from that of the melee cleric or the rogue. We haven't seen maneuvers yet, but I imagine complexity comes back in there.


----------



## Estlor (May 24, 2012)

Just had a chance to digest the character sheets and noticed something I really liked.

The flavor of Vancian Spellcasting used by the wizard and cleric is actually the spellcasting system of Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.  You cast X/level spells, but you decide _at the time of casting_ which prepared spells they are.


----------



## awesomeocalypse (May 24, 2012)

The pregen fighter is awful. I understand a more complex/manuever-based version is coming soon, but even for a "simple" version that is just a really uninteresting excuse for a "class". I feel like this system has so much freedom for the designers to really just sit down and think about what are cool things, both in and out of combat, that veteran warriors have going for them and to play off that without being bound to some rigid skill or power system, and right now they aren't taking any advantage of that. 

Like imagine a trait that says something like "Veteran Wariness: Even when surprised, you are never caught without weapon and shield at hand". Thats not mechanically complicated at all--in fact its mechanically simpler because you don't have to figure out their numbers without weapons. it doesn't add any complexity or length to the fight. But it adds flavor to the class in a way that has real impact on gameplay. Or something like "Shake it Off: For purposes of resisting spells, treat the fighter's HP as thought it were doubled." That isn't an extra manuever, the simplicity minded player who doesn't want to have to do too much thinking can still just stand around and attack, but it's at least something to give the class some flavor beyond hp, ac, attack, damage. There is so much more potential here to make even a "simple" fighter awesome.

I like what I'm seeing of the magic system. Spells as rituals, the bland of vancian and at-will, the HP thresholds on spells. _Really_ good stuff. 

Advantage/Disadvantage is awesome. if they combine with FATE style zones for combat, I could actually see it resulting in a moderately tactical, easy to play gridless combat engine, which would be a ing miracle of rpg design. For example, if you move away from an adjacent melee combatant enemy, you are disadvantaged for one round--cuts down on the fiddliness and game time spent on attacks of opportunity, while still creating a degree of "stickiness". LOTS of potential here for handling a wide variety of combat situations in a simple way.

The monster design is very meh, but the core mechanical idea of "Monster X gains advantage when condition Y is met" isn't a bad one for simulating/incentivizing some monster behaviors, and I can see some potential for synergy there with monsters that put a character at disadvantage, then other monsters that can take advantage of that by gaining extra effects vs. disadvantaged characters. Obviously if this is how monsters look when the game ships that will suck, but I see potential in the system for brining in less fiddly version of 4e-style mechanical differentiation. 

I'm not seeing at all how backgrounds could be made modular or how one would mix and match elements from different backgrounds to make your own--the different backgrounds offer varying numbers of skills, and a grab-bag of traits that really vary in utility in power, such that it'd be hard to know when merging two backgrounds how many skills your new background should have, or how much each feature is "worth".

I do like that lots of the features are binary rather than fiddly math bonuses. Dwarves don't get a bonus vs. poison--it straight up doesn't work. That speeds up play in a way that is flavorful and fun.​


----------



## Argyle King (May 24, 2012)

I see a few signs that Dex might be too good compared to the other stats.  I noticed it because one of my old complaints about D&D is still in the rules -heavy armor tends to be worse than light armor.


Assuming I have maxed out Dex, I have AC 20 with Mithril.

The heavy armor user with Adamantine ends up with 18; while also losing 5 feet of movement and having 50lbs of extra weight to carry around.

...so, I end up being easier to hit, slower, and more encumbered.  


My damage isn't as good because I had to sack other stats suck as Strength to get that high Dex, you say?  Fortunately for me, I can pick up a weapon which allows me to use Dex for my melee attacks and damage.  On top of that, Dex is used for ranged attacks.  It gives me a better initiative too.  I feel that Dex offers a little bit too much compared to some of the other abilities.

Personally, I'd like to see Initiative be free of abilities completely.  Simply make initiative a flat d20 roll; maybe with a bonus of +1 for every 5 levels or something like that.  Feats such as improved initiative can still exist if you want more of a bonus.  Being surprised means you have Disadvantage for your initiative roll -thus rolling twice and taking the lower result.  

I mention the weight of heavy armor because being encumbered means you have Disadvantage.  So you potentially have worse AC, slower movement, a worse initiative, and Disadvantage for any checks you want to make.  
-----------------------

I see a few pretty easy ways to abuse Slayer training.  If I'm fighting something with a high AC, I could potentially switch to a weapon which is normally worse for me so as to intentionally miss.  Doing consistent damage with every attack (which could potentially be ranged attacks, so that ties in with the high Dex mentioned above) rather than doing more damage on only a few hits is potentially a worthwhile tradeoff against an opponent I have little chance of hitting anyway.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 24, 2012)

Check out the Etheral condition: The etheral plane is back!

-YRUSirius


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 24, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I see a few pretty easy ways to abuse Slayer training.  If I'm fighting something with a high AC, I could potentially switch to a weapon which is normally worse for me so as to intentionally miss.  Doing consistent damage with every attack (which could potentially be ranged attacks, so that ties in with the high Dex mentioned above) rather than doing more damage on only a few hits is potentially a worthwhile tradeoff against an opponent I have little chance of hitting anyway.



Yeah, especially if you trade up to a bigger weapon that does more damage. You could theoretically hit for more damage than your normal weapon.


----------



## Kzach (May 24, 2012)

Nebulous said:


> not liking the 8 hour rest =  full HP recovery.




Why not?



Dragoslav said:


> No scythes? Wtf? Heads will roll.




Not without scythes they won't 



ExploderWizard said:


> The rest mechanic I see being a factor until 2nd or 3rd level. Once the cash flow is good an herbalist can crank out 24 1d8 healing potions per 8 hour workday for 600gp.
> 
> 24d8 of healing before needing to use any rest.



I don't see this as a problem assuming that they can't be sold and only work for party members.

The actual healing amount doesn't bother me particularly. Taking an action to drink and giving only 1d8 (average 4.5) healing is pretty weaksauce.


----------



## NewJeffCT (May 24, 2012)

grrr - still having issues downloading.  I get -  *Bad Request - Invalid URL - HTTP Error 400. The request URL is invalid.*

This is after the initial URL - it was then go to the next page and then give me the invalid URL error.  (I tried another browser, too)


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 24, 2012)

Some of my first impressions:

The system seems quite simple and elegant, with just the right amount of complexity. None of the rules strike me as overly "gamist", which makes the simulationist in me happy.

Finesse Weapons let you use your Dexterity instead of Strength if you prefer. Hurray to getting rid of the feat tax that was weapon finesse!

I'm glad to see starting characters with double digit HP, though I'm still not clear on whether they are randomly generated or fixed. (I loathe randomly generated HPs).

We already knew there would be at-will cantrips, but it's worth celebrating anyway. And anyone can get a couple at-will basic spells (cantrips) by taking the Arcane Dabbler feat or Magic-User theme. Cool!

I like the way the spells are written. Very old school feel.

I love how they made some spells usable as rituals without preparation. Brilliant! Sadly they still have a gp cost, but we may be able to persuade them to go with something different, or at least give an extra benefit to the ritual version of the spell, such as longer durations or some such, to make the monetary expenditure more worthwhile.

Alot of spells use dice + ability modifier for spell damage/healing, like in 4e. I like this. I hope they bring back implements as well.

There is no caster level for spell damage, duration, etc.; Spells have fixed damage and durations (with the very odd exception of magic missile). Likewise, spell save DCs are 10 + ability modifier only, so they do not scale with spell level. Excellent. This fixes so many of the problems that plagued past editions with magic items, multiclassing, spells becoming obsolete, etc.

I don't like magic missile. I don't like the auto-hit or how they stuck to the old (gain 2 levels, add 1 more missile) thing. It just doesn't play well with the other spells in the game. It doesn't depend on intelligence, like other damaging spells do. It starts out too weak but eventually becomes too powerful, leaving other cantrips like shocking grasp in the dust.

I like the simplified armor table, but there seems to be no reason whatsoever (aside from a few pounds of weight and gp cost) not to use the best type of armor in each category. There should be a reason, IMO, to choose leather armor over a chain shirt, etc.

I love the intoxicated condition, except that it reduces the damage you take.


----------



## Snapdragyn (May 24, 2012)

I'm not seeing where the rogue's listed attack w/ its weapons is coming from. It looks like it's 2 more than it should be, & I can't figure out where this is coming from. If every class simply gets +2 w/ proficient weapons, shouldn't this just be listed under the proficiency section? Even if it's something specific to rogues (& fighters, I think someone said?), then shouldn't it be listed under class abilities?


----------



## ferratus (May 24, 2012)

Okay, who were the alpha playtesters who nixed the silver standard for the equipment lists and treasure guidelines?

I hope you know that you've broken my heart.   I'm shattered, gutted, and completely depressed.   It was my dealmaker for 5e, and the thing that had me more excited about the new edition than anything else.

I hope you are pleased with yourself.  Monster.

(Perhaps a little too heavy with the faux outrage, given that parody is indistinguishable from the real thing on the internet.   Still, it was the first thing I turned to, and my biggest disappointment.)


----------



## Yora (May 24, 2012)

Probably lots of people have said this: *"This is trimmed down 3rd Edition."*

Which I actually quite like. 3rd Edition has very solid basic rules, but is way too much bloated, even with just the PHB. This could indeed be the D&D I've always wanted.


----------



## Argyle King (May 24, 2012)

When going from level 1 to level 3, the Fighter gets +1 damage.
When going from level 1 to level 3, the Rogue gets +2d6 sneak attack damage.


The average of a d6 is 3.5, so the rogue is dealing 7 extra damage at level 3 compared to the fighter's 1.  Granted, the rogue needs to meet the conditions for sneak attack to use it, but that still seems skewed a bit much in one direction.  Especially since the rogue also has so many other things it can do on top of just dealing damage.  
-------------------------

The encumbrance rules need some work.  While I appreciate the streamlined nature of yes/no when it comes to whether or not you are encumbered, I feel like there should be an intermediate stage in there somewhere.  Being a small character is going to be pretty rough with those rules as well.

I could do with a little more granularity in that area of the rules.


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 24, 2012)

Yora said:


> Probably lots of people have said this: *"This is trimmed down 3rd Edition."*




Interesting take. I see alot of ADnD in this as well, particularly in the skill system (which reminds me alot of non-weapon proficiencies) and the way spells are presented. I've also noticed quite a bit of 4th edition, like spells not scaling with level, at-will "basic spells," and many spells allowing the victims to save every round to get free of the effect. I'm really impressed with how much of the game is new and innovative while still feeling like DnD. They didn't just take old rules and ideas, they also greatly improved upon many of them. 

I was very skeptical about 5e, but what I've seen so far has me very encouraged. This may become the best version of DnD yet, and I don't say that lightly!


----------



## YRUSirius (May 24, 2012)

I'm miss some flavorful racial features for humans. I think they get +1 on all attributes but that seems rather bland. Why not something like a feature that gives an advantage to any roll you like 2 times a day (basically action points for humans)?

-YRUSirius


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (May 24, 2012)

Repost from what I said on the WotC Forums

So far, I really don't have too many good things to say. I do like the at-will attack spells being available for the cleric and the wizard. While I was apprehensive about the return of Vancian casting, it does seem to be okay. However, the spellcasting attack mechanic is kind of overly convoluted. Why not just say you use your Intelligence score +2 for all magic attacks? However, the fighter is back to being boring. The character sheets also have a great deal of redundant information. Instead of saying "you have this, go here to find out more about it" why not just say "you have this, it does this"? It almost feels like characters could fit on a 3x5 in notecard.

Bottom line Recommendations:
1. Make the mechanics more clear. Tell us what it does and nothing more. Don't bury mechanics in the text. For example, if a theoretical _lightning bolt_ spell, say you create at 50 ft. line of lightning. Creatures in the line take 3d6 + your magic ability modifier lightning damage. If the creature succeeds on a Dexterity saving throw, they take half damage. Don't say stuff like they can duck out of the way and make a Dexterity saving throw, we know what a Dexterity saving throw is. If a wizard gets a bonus to their Intelligence to magic attacks, say their magical attack bonus is their Intelligence plus the bonus. Do not say "they make attacks with their Intelligence, also they gain a bonus to attack. Their magical attack bonus is their intelligence plus this bonus."
2. Clean up the character sheets. Don't list something as a benefit and then say look elsewhere for it, only to have that elsewhere list all of the benefits. Just say You are A race, you gain B benefit that does such and such, C benefit that does such and such, and D benefit that does such and such. I had an impossible time figuring out how cantrips work. Make sure to list that in the Class Features section. I shouldn't have to go tearing through the book to find that, it should be with the class.
3. Give the fighter something to do besides hit stuff with his weapon.
4. Why in the name of all that is good does the friggin Cleric have a much higher AC than the Fighter? I thought Fighters were supposed to be the AC kings? We are barely into the playtest and already the Cleric has made the Fighter irrelevant.
5. I really don't like how skills work. As in, I have no frickin' idea HOW they work. What do I do if I want to open a lock? Saving Throws are pretty straight forward, why can't skills? They need to be codified better. Open Lock, Stealth, etc. should trigger off of Dexterity, and the rules should say that. Lore skills should trigger off Intelligence. Don't leave this stuff up to the DM to make up on the fly, make it coherent and consistent.
6. Monsters: Open the 4E MM, look at how monsters are displayed in it, DO THAT and then attach all the lore and whatnot.


Most importantly though, MAKE IT COHERENT.


----------



## Snapdragyn (May 24, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> The encumbrance rules need some work.  While I appreciate the streamlined nature of yes/no when it comes to whether or not you are encumbered, I feel like there should be an intermediate stage in there somewhere.  Being a small character is going to be pretty rough with those rules as well.




I had the same thought until I reread the relevant section under the Strength attribute. Small characters do not take any cut to carrying capacity vs. Medium. Really, Small vs. Medium now has very little effect at all (I think it's -5 speed & not able to use heavy weapons - & that might be it).


----------



## Yora (May 24, 2012)

"Skills" are explained in the DM-Section, pretty clearly I think.


----------



## Argyle King (May 24, 2012)

Snapdragyn said:


> I had the same thought until I reread the relevant section under the Strength attribute. Small characters do not take any cut to carrying capacity vs. Medium. Really, Small vs. Medium now has very little effect at all (I think it's -5 speed & not able to use heavy weapons - & that might be it).





Thanks.  I thought it said that each size down cut your capacity in half.  I didn't catch that it started after small size.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (May 24, 2012)

Yora said:


> "Skills" are explained in the DM-Section, pretty clearly I think.



 They are there, but they aren't clear.  Leaving too much to the DM will lead to inconsistency, which is only a little better than not having rules for it at all.


----------



## jasin (May 24, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> The spell attack bonuses on the wizard elf (+6; should be +5 = 3 Int + 2 magical attacks) and the human cleric (+4; should be +6 = 4 Wis + 2 magical attacks) seem off. Did I miss something?



I'd be the cleric's bonus is a typo, after all he has +6 with radiant lance.

The wizard has +6 in three different places, so maybe there's a +1 bonus to magic for wizards? There does seem to be a +1 bonus to attack for fighters (and +2 to damage).


----------



## Snapdragyn (May 25, 2012)

jasin said:


> The wizard has +6 in three different places, so maybe there's a +1 bonus to magic for wizards? There does seem to be a +1 bonus to attack for fighters (and +2 to damage).




If it's +1 to attack for fighters, then why is the rogue seemingly getting a +2 to attack? I cannot work out where the extra +2 is coming from; it seems that it should be at +3 w/ the weapons listed rather than the +5 shown. *confused*


----------



## jasin (May 25, 2012)

Snapdragyn said:


> If it's +1 to attack for fighters, then why is the rogue seemingly getting a +2 to attack? I cannot work out where the extra +2 is coming from; it seems that it should be at +3 w/ the weapons listed rather than the +5 shown. *confused*



To me it looks like there's a very good case for +2 to attack if you're proficient; carried over from 4E, explicit for magic attacks, seemingly included for everyone, implied by the comment about improvised weapons getting no bonus.

On top of that, fighters and wizards apparently get another +1.

So the rogue's dagger is +3 Dex +2 weapon proficiency.

The cleric's radiant lance is +4 Wis +2 magic proficiency.

The cleric's quarterstaff is -1 Str +1 weapon proficiency.

The fighter's axe is +3 Str +2 weapon proficiency +1 because fighters are the best at hitting people.

The wizard's ray of frost is +3 Int +2 magic proficiency +1 because wizards are the best at magicking people.

Or there could just be mistakes, I don't know.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 25, 2012)

Snapdragyn said:


> If it's +1 to attack for fighters, then why is the rogue seemingly getting a +2 to attack? I cannot work out where the extra +2 is coming from; it seems that it should be at +3 w/ the weapons listed rather than the +5 shown. *confused*



It appears to be a +2 proficiency bonus with weapons.  Everyone has a +2 to their attack rolls from nowhere at all, but the fighter has a +3.

Casters just get +2 to spells.  I'm guessing to make up for the lack of proficiency bonus.


----------



## Libramarian (May 25, 2012)

Charm Person works best if you beat them up first. That's kinda kinky.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 25, 2012)

This... is frankly rather upsetting to read.

And reading it is incredibly difficult with all that junk text in the way of actual rules.

Blahablablahblahblah1d6blahblahblahblahDCblahblahblahblahInt modblahblahblahblahblah.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 25, 2012)

(sorry for the double-post... forums are choking)

There are some good ideas, that could be better back-ported to previous editions. But overall this is just very, very, very clumsy.


----------



## mlund (May 25, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Charm Person works best if you beat them up first. That's kinda kinky.




Not really. You break enough of somebody's fingers and they are usually falling over themselves to mollify you and make the hurting stop.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Libramarian (May 25, 2012)

mlund said:


> Not really. You break enough of somebody's fingers and they are usually falling over themselves to mollify you and make the hurting stop.
> 
> - Marty Lund



That's more like intimidate, not charm. Charm means they actually like you and think of you as a friend.

I suspect this philosophy of spells working better on targets with low HP is going to cause some unexpected consequences when used outside of combat.


----------



## ren1999 (May 25, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I made an ability vs. ability success chart I could dig up if you want.




Sure.


----------



## grimslade (May 25, 2012)

Mind magic is all about Good PC, Bad PC. The Bad PCs put a hurt on you, but the Good PC just wants you to _Sleep_ or is really a _Charm_ing friend who will stop Bad PC from giving you a Great Axe massage or putting daggers in all you organs in alphabetical order.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 25, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Aesthetic choices are fine if there's no mechanical disparity between them.  But if a starting character only has X amount of gold to spend on equipment... there's absolutely no reason why they'd buy a mace rather than a club.  Even if the mace was more "cleric-y" for example...




If you are a cleric of St. Cuthbert (or Helm, Torm, Tyr or something) and you enter one of his temples, the clergy will turn around, point fingers, laugh at you and say: "Hah, get outa here, you losy cleric and join some druidic circle or something. You hippy."

-YRUSirius


----------



## ren1999 (May 25, 2012)

Mengu said:


> There are a few other errors I think. The wizard's staff should be +3 attack, 1d8+1 damage. It is a finesse weapon. Similarly, cleric of Pelor's Staff should be +4 attack, 1d8+2 damage. Strangely, 1d8 is the correct dice per the HtP document.




Let me see if I'm following you.
Wizard Quarterstaff(finesse=dexmod+1)(+2) damage 1d8(strmod-1)(+2)?
Cleric of Pelor Quarterstaff(dexmod+2)(+2) damage 1d8(strmod-1)(+2)?


----------



## Evenglare (May 25, 2012)

Honestly my first impressions? Underwhelmed. I simply dont get the Armor, at all. I understand this is a play test, but it seems simply way to basic. I can pretty much do all of this already with the stuff I have. I dont feel anything "new" has come from it. I dont see any reason to run this , when I could run ... say ... castles and crusades. I'm not saying it's bad, but the material given is just to basic for me to make any kind of call. I dont plan on running this anytime soon because there isnt much to run honestly. It's annoying that I dont have all the monster rules either. Firebeetles skuttle? What does it do ?


----------



## Otakkun (May 25, 2012)

In two words? 3.75 Edition.

Seems like I was right. What a shame.


----------



## ren1999 (May 25, 2012)

My second pass impression.
I love the formatting. Every subject is just limited to under 3 paragraphs and very simple to follow. 
But what is missing is the information I need to actually do a play-test. I need to know where these additional numbers in the attacks and defenses are coming from. If they are from weapon proficiency feats, I want them listed. I also need to know the basic level-up mechanic. I'm guessing all bonuses will be based on higher ability scores at higher levels. If that is so, then just do away with levels all together.
Are some spells really versus armor class? 
I really like that there are only 4 points difference in basic Difficulty Class rolls.
I don't like the idea of the GM (me) having to roll DC saves every time a caster casts a spell. That is something I don't want from the other current edition.


----------



## Shieldhaven (May 25, 2012)

So - is it hideously gauche to just link my blog post of off-the-cuff reactions to the rules as I read through them?

What the heck, I'll risk being hideously gauche, and if it violates a forum rule I don't know about, I will apologize to the moderators.

Harbinger of Doom


----------



## soulcatcher78 (May 25, 2012)

++
Advantage/Disadvantage - Easier than looking up a chart of possible modifiers.  Disadvantage will make someone cry if they lose a potential roll of 20 when their second die reads 3, lol.

Potential to use a dead Goblin as a weapon...who doesn't love that visual?

No mention of tindertwigs or everburning torches in the equipment list *woot*

--
Overnight healing - Hoping that this is something to be changed after this first draft of the packet given the last article about how HP and healing worked.

Discrepencies with the armor chart (light/medium armor with high dex being better than plate mail).  Hoping that this will be resolved with future additions (or feats) that either remove the penalties or give us something in return for being in a metal suit (damage reduction?).

All in all I'm pretty happy with my initial read through.  Looking forward to seeing how well it plays.

PS- For all of those folks worried about how boring the Fighter is, pick up a dead Goblin and break the will of the enemy with your blood lust!


----------



## NewJeffCT (May 25, 2012)

my first impressions are none.  I must have tried 30 times to download it, but keep getting the same error message.  No response yet from customer service.


----------



## ren1999 (May 25, 2012)

I think we need to get the designers to clarify something like this right away.

melee attacks based on strength should be (str vs ac)
melee finesse attacks (dex vs ac)
higher level melee finesse attacks attacking explosed flesh and chinks in the armor (dex vs dex)
touch attacks where armor doesn't matter (dex vs dex)
ranged thrown weapons (str vs ac)
ranged projectile weapons (dex vs ac)
prayer attacks (wis vs con/dex/int/or wis)
spell attacks (int vs con/dex/int/or wis)


----------



## SkidAce (May 25, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> If you are a cleric of St. Cuthbert (or Helm, Torm, Tyr or something) and you enter one of his temples, the clergy will turn around, point fingers, laugh at you and say: "Hah, get outa here, you lousy cleric and join some druidic circle or something. You hippy."
> 
> -YRUSirius




If XP was on, you would get bunches.


----------



## B.T. (May 25, 2012)

Hating the daily abilities for fighters/rogues.


----------



## Stormonu (May 25, 2012)

Well, bummer.  I came home tonight hot to try out a playtest, and the wife and kids wanted to play Super Dungeon Explore instead.  My time as a playtester does not bode well...


----------



## GSHamster (May 25, 2012)

For some reason, on first reading it feels a lot like 2E to me. Well, a saner 2E with advantage/disadvantage instead of bonuses/penalties.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 25, 2012)

First impression:
Some of their word choices are just dumb; disadvantage?  hustle? lolwut.
Looks largely like a even-more-prosey 3.5 port.
Prosey spells are nice...prosey spells with no simple breakdown _anywhere_ is just dumb.  'cause you know the first guy who wants that is going to read through it and make it, then do that for every spell they use, and eventually all the people doing this will combine that info and distribute it.

So overall, I'm rather "MEH".  Making a paladin out of a cleric though....PISSES ME OFF!


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 25, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Charm Person works best if you beat them up first. That's kinda kinky.







*MODULE DX 1  THE PAIN MISTRESSES OF INVERNESS*


----------



## Dragoslav (May 25, 2012)

shidaku said:


> First impression:
> Some of their word choices are just dumb; disadvantage?  hustle? lolwut.



"Disadvantage" is a clear, simple counterpart to "advantage." "Hustle," on the other hand, is indeed pretty silly... They could have called it "sprint," "storm," "rush," etc.

On this topic, I'm not sure how I feel about not just having a "move action" anymore. It seems like it can work just fine, but I have my reservations.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 25, 2012)

Hm, all this talk makes me think: They could rename the game back into AD&D. Advantages & Disadvantages. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## avin (May 25, 2012)

Faerie, Material Plane, nice?

Enviado de meu X10a usando o Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kinak (May 25, 2012)

Dragoslav said:


> On this topic, I'm not sure how I feel about not just having a "move action" anymore. It seems like it can work just fine, but I have my reservations.



It's worth noting that you don't move as a single action in the playtest rules. You have your 30' (or whatever) of movement that you can spread throughout the round.

So you can run up to your enemy, attack them, and then use the rest of your movement to back away. Calling that a "move action" just seems a bit weird.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## Sunseeker (May 25, 2012)

Dragoslav said:


> "Disadvantage" is a clear, simple counterpart to "advantage." "Hustle," on the other hand, is indeed pretty silly... They could have called it "sprint," "storm," "rush," etc.
> 
> On this topic, I'm not sure how I feel about not just having a "move action" anymore. It seems like it can work just fine, but I have my reservations.




I understand that it is clear and simple, unlike hustle, which is a dance move.

However, the word itsself, even "advantage" feels clunky.  Like I have to chew on it a bit before I can spit it out.  It's a long, multi-syllable word.

It's a _good_ word, I just don't like the way it feels.

I REALLY like that everyone just has X amount of movement that they can use as they want during their turn.


----------



## jadrax (May 25, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> [*]No spell disruption rules in evidence.
> 
> More as I read it (haven't gotten to the bestiary yet, and only skimmed the characters).




The spell disruption rules are on the character sheets. ;o)


----------



## B.T. (May 25, 2012)

You have to "walk" ten feet to get a bonus on jumps. I kid you not.


> However, the word itsself, even "advantage" feels clunky. Like I have to chew on it a bit before I can spit it out. It's a long, multi-syllable word.
> 
> It's a _good_ word, I just don't like the way it feels.



I feel the same way--I can see myself stumbling over saying "you have (dis)advantage" quite a bit.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 25, 2012)

B.T. said:


> You have to "walk" ten feet to get a bonus on jumps.  I kid you not.




"walk" is likely a misnomer, but getting a moving start on a jump is really the only way _to_ get a bonus to jumping.  Being able to leap forward a large distance is practically impossible thanks to the laws of inertia.


----------



## Kinak (May 25, 2012)

jadrax said:


> The spell disruption rules are on the character sheets. ;o)



Wow! Thanks for pointing that out, I totally missed that.

Just for wizards, interesting.

Also, damn, that's pretty harsh. Keep your wizard in the back. I really like not having to hold actions for it, though.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## YRUSirius (May 25, 2012)

shidaku said:


> However, the word itsself, even "advantage" feels clunky.  Like I have to chew on it a bit before I can spit it out.  It's a long, multi-syllable word.
> 
> It's a _good_ word, I just don't like the way it feels.



After many sessions of play these might become ads or disads. Something like that always happens.

Other topic: Just noticed that the elf wizard has only 1 hit point less than the 'sturdy' dwarven battle cleric. This feels off to me, I like my stereotypical _elven wizard_ a little bit more squishy.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Novem5er (May 25, 2012)

It's been a long while since I've posted on EnWorld... probably since my group stopped playing 4e about 18 months ago. We actually liked 4e a lot, but got burned out with it due to the general complaints (combat taking forever, power bloat, etc).

I'm eager to see what 5e has to offer, so I've downloaded and spent the last few hours picking through it. I've got a couple of comments that I hadn't quite seen yet.

1. Monster HP - Gone are the uber-Kobolds of 4e. It looks like low level monsters can again be killed with a single hit by most classes. I'm happy about that because it should speed up combat as they promised.

2. Monsters also seem to have fewer "powers", which will also speed up the game... but I'm also a little concerned that some of the monsters are a little boring. It's a hard balance to strike, and only after playing will I know which side to come down on. I like that they gave most of the monsters at least something interesting (kobolds getting advantage if outnumbering, goblins get a basic sneak attack). But will it be enough?

3. The whole system seems a little "rules lite"... which I thought I was going to be positive about. After reading, and re-reading the How to Play manual... I can't help feeling "this is it?" I was expecting to be pooring over the crunch for a few hours... not learning the system in 20 minutes and then searching for more complexity.

On that last note, I think that what IS there is quality. I like the advantage/disadvantage. I like the background/theme mix and believe that it will open up a lot of great character ideas. I think the characters have some interesting actions available to them without suffering under power-bloat or the idea that everyone is equal at everything mechanically.

However, I still have to hold my tongue and believe that there IS more to the game design than what we are seeing in this limited play test manual. The "math" of the system might be a great change (see Monster HP above) and handing the DM more creative power can be a great thing for experienced DM's.

I can't help feeling that this more akin to 2.5 edition.... which is a bare-bones combat and RP system with some newer, forward thinking included to make it more modern. That not bad... I think?


----------



## rkwoodard (May 25, 2012)

shidaku said:


> First impression:
> 
> 
> So overall, I'm rather "MEH".  Making a paladin out of a cleric though....PISSES ME OFF!





I love it.  This give me a way to really play a Templar style cleric without being a full fledged Paladin.

I bet you will have your distinct LG Paladin as a Class in the final run.

RK


----------



## The Little Raven (May 25, 2012)

I wonder who thought that allowing spells to have nearly-unrestricted bonus stacking was a good idea after two editions where type-restricted bonus stacking caused problems.


----------



## Campbell (May 25, 2012)

I adore the backgrounds, especially the traits that are grounded directly in the game's fiction. Researcher is made of pure win. I also really like how Attack bonuses and AC remain look like they will remain fairly static. Same deal for saves and save DCs. Also love how combat role flexibility is built into the game with themes.

I have some issues, but I need more time to put my thoughts together.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 25, 2012)

Campbell said:


> Also love how combat role flexibility is built into the game with themes.




Sort of. The Guardian theme is a crappy Defender, and the Slayer is a laughable attempt at the Striker (considering it's basically a feature built into a Defender power in 4e).


----------



## Dragoslav (May 25, 2012)

Kinak said:


> It's worth noting that you don't move as a single action in the playtest rules. You have your 30' (or whatever) of movement that you can spread throughout the round.
> 
> So you can run up to your enemy, attack them, and then use the rest of your movement to back away. Calling that a "move action" just seems a bit weird.
> 
> ...



Oh yes, that is a change that I do like. No more experiencing this conversation with the DM: 
"I walk up to the door, open it, run into the room, and attack him!" 
"You can't do that, it's a minor action to open the door, you have to use a move action to move up to the door, and after opening it you can either take another move action or attack."
"That's a bunch of crap."
"Hey, it's the rules."

Although I'm hoping to see rules for opportunity attacks show up soon, personally.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 25, 2012)

The Little Raven said:


> Sort of. The Guardian theme is a crappy Defender, and the Slayer is a laughable attempt at the Striker (considering it's basically a feature built into a Defender power in 4e).



Are you seriously comparing the power of a 4e class with the power of a 5e class?

In 5E's world the guardian might do a pretty job in defending his allies, I haven't played it, but it could work.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Transformer (May 25, 2012)

First impression: positive. Advantage and disadvantage seem like a big hit. I love the hit dice mundane healing mechanic. The stuff that's broken, like heavy armor sucking and monster stat blocks not including concise full descriptions of spells, are easily fixed. It's not at all revolutionary, but it was never going to be that.


----------



## Herschel (May 25, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> If you are a cleric of St. Cuthbert (or Helm, Torm, Tyr or something) and you enter one of his temples, the clergy will turn around, point fingers, laugh at you and say: "Hah, get outa here, you losy cleric and join some druidic circle or something. You hippy."
> 
> -YRUSirius




BFD, the club can be made of metal and they won't be laughing when the Cleric kicks the tar out of them while they have trouble hitting him because he could afford better armor.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 25, 2012)

You attack your own clergy?

-YRUSirius

(Btw, I think a club out of metal might be a mace... )


----------



## Jacob Marley (May 25, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> If you are a cleric of St. Cuthbert (or Helm, Torm, Tyr or something) and you enter one of his temples, the clergy will turn around, point fingers, laugh at you and say: "Hah, get outa here, you losy cleric and join some druidic circle or something. You hippy."
> 
> -YRUSirius




You mean the clergy of Saint Cuthbert OF THE CUDGEL are going to laugh at a cleric who carries a cudgel? 

...

Well, I finally downloaded the docs after 11 hours and 50 minutes. Time to start reading.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 25, 2012)

Jacob Marley said:


> You mean the clergy of Saint Cuthbert OF THE CUDGEL are going to laugh at a cleric who carries a cudgel?



Hm, haven't thought of this. Touché. But what about the clergy of other religions that place high importance into status and would kick you outa the door if you arrive with a wooden weapon of the poor? There is more to weapons than just the raw mechanics, that's all I'm saying. It can be handled as an important status symbol by the DM if he wants to. Story and all that jazz.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Pheonix0114 (May 25, 2012)

Maybe it is just me, but it feels really arbitrary as to what grants a bonus to something, and what grants advantage/disadvantage. I.e: the Shield spell grants half cover (a +2 bonus to AC) while Shield of Faith grants Disadvantage to attackers. I'm not sure why, but every time something gave a bonus I felt like it would hold more to the system to grant advantage/disadvantage. For example: Dodge, it would make more sense to me if it made all attackers you were aware of be disadvantaged for the attack.


----------



## Thraug (May 25, 2012)

I'm quite happy so far with what I see from this early core set of rules. The optional components will make or break this game for some and I look forward to customizing my game with them.

*LOVE*:


Overall streamlining of ... everything! This will greatly speed up the ridiculously long 4e combats with very little loss in tactical depth, even with a very simple grid system.
Less monster powers
Less monster HP
Less complex spells/powers
Removal of 4e's micro-managed action choices with multiple activities in each
 


Advantage/Disadvantage. Easy to remember and easy to run. This is the most important and smooth part of it. No more adding up excessive amounts of numbers, figuring out which stack and whioch don't; doing crazy math at high levels (+31, -2, -5, +2, bleh...)
 

Flat math. BEST.CHANGE.EVER! I could write an essay on why this is fantastic. See above math point for just one. No more L25 Orcs, or L25 Orc "minions". Yeah! Just Orc, 1 hit them at high level but fight ranks of them quickly and they can still affect you without being L25 "minions" that are impervious to low level parties.


More decisions and outcomes given to the DM. A good DM will be empowered, but a poor one will suffer unfortunately.


Backgrounds and themes are great.


Am I the only one that loves the racial immunities?


Simple fighter class option. Folks, there are players that want to swing a sword and roll dice, that's it. This is the class for them. They have said you can make a more advanced and tactically deep Fighter if you like, but this is not him.


No mention of Skill Challenges. WORST.FEATURE.EVER!
 
*DISLIKE*:


Spell and monster descriptions. They need to have a well-defined gameplay box layout, in addition to the fluff and lore, but these should be separate.


Electrum. Why? The only coin not following the power of 10 progression? Pointless and unnecessary.


Character sheet. I found them confusing to read and disorganized. The back pages are a mess.


Stealth rules in combat still too complex. Remove them or make them super abstract and easy. No edition has come close to having good stealth rules.
 
*HATE*


Long Rest
Allowing a character to heal up to 100% HP and HD after one Long Rest:
eliminates story elements that stem from lasting injuries/wounds/wear or enduring treacherous journeys.
forces isolated combat encounters (1/day max) to be very difficult to be challenging or be a pushover at normal difficulty.
reduces plausibility and suspension of disbelief of being on a long and hard grueling adventure


 
HP gained when leveling. Rolling is bad:
Lose character sheet you lost your rolls. Bad rolls encourage "lost" character sheets. Terrible.
Suggestion: Add optional rule to not roll. Instead, gain 1/2 HD + CON bonus (assuming minimum ability score is 8).
 


Weapon and Armor charts. Both are terrible and need a complete overhaul. The armor chart is a disaster. Either make item the same or give them unique properties that give us worthy choices to make.


----------



## Thraug (May 25, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> Some of my first impressions:
> 
> I'm glad to see starting characters with double digit HP, though I'm still not clear on whether they are randomly generated or fixed. (I loathe randomly generated HPs).




Each character's HP are fixed:
Constitution + 1/2 HD value


----------



## Sunseeker (May 25, 2012)

rkwoodard said:


> I love it.  This give me a way to really play a Templar style cleric without being a full fledged Paladin.
> 
> I bet you will have your distinct LG Paladin as a Class in the final run.
> 
> RK




What I don't like about it is that it just grows the already incredible space the cleric takes up.  With the appropriate themes and backgrounds, the Cleric can literally fill every role in the party.  You don't need any other classes.

That is simply too much.


----------



## Kzach (May 25, 2012)

> Damage Type: All damage has a type. For example, a longsword deals slashing damage, an arrow deals piercing damage, and the fireball spell deals fire damage.




Intriguing. Very intriguing.


----------



## Plissken (May 25, 2012)

I like what I'm seeing so far. Feels old-school with a mix of the new.


----------



## Dykstrav (May 25, 2012)

First impressions: neutral. I've found things that I like and some things that I don't like.

On the positive side... I dig the idea of flat math and the theme/background elements. Stuff about using kits during short rests is kinda neat, I could see digging that.

On the negative... The intoxicated condition. This is just _begging_ for certain player types to make asses of themselves, especially since it provides a mechanical benefit.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 25, 2012)

I'm liking it OK - it looks like old-school D&D.  With all the little bugs (armor!) that implies.

I'm not seeing anything, though, that makes me think that the 4e flag-wavers are going to be happy at all.  Of course, I haven't seen many of them posting.  Are they boycotting?


----------



## Incenjucar (May 25, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> I'm liking it OK - it looks like old-school D&D.  With all the little bugs (armor!) that implies.
> 
> I'm not seeing anything, though, that makes me think that the 4e flag-wavers are going to be happy at all.  Of course, I haven't seen many of them posting.  Are they boycotting?




"If you can't say anything nice..."

There ARE some good ideas in there, some of which would be worth important to previous editions, but speaking purely for myself, I'm not sure I can say anything constructive about an edition I can't see ever being modified enough for me to want to touch.

I'm just going to let it simmer, let things be said, and then try to help out where I can after some reflection.


----------



## slobster (May 25, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> I'm not seeing anything, though, that makes me think that the 4e flag-wavers are going to be happy at all.  Of course, I haven't seen many of them posting.  Are they boycotting?




I suppose I'm a 4E flagwaver, in the sense that I enjoyed the game just fine. And I'm excited by what I see so far, but haven't had a chance to actually play it yet. So I don't have much to post about the playtest .

To be honest, since this is just a basic structural playtest, it's hard to tell how much 4E or 3.x or AD&D will make it into things like class design and racial mechanics, which is where most of the differences in the editions can be found anyway. IMO this playtest feels familiar to us all because it _is _pretty familiar - basic D&D combat and skill resolution is a lot more similar across editions than are the fancier mechanics of making an individual character and all the bells and whistles that implies. DDN is no exception so far.

Where there are differences, like adv/disadv or the healing mechanics, I'm excited to see them making departures and anxious to see it all in action!


----------



## Transformer (May 25, 2012)

> I'm not seeing anything, though, that makes me think that the 4e flag-wavers are going to be happy at all. Of course, I haven't seen many of them posting. Are they boycotting?




I'm still reasonably optimistic about 5e taking what's needed from 4e. A few things are in already: high 1st-level hp, "healing surges," straightforward monster xp system. Hopefully Wizards will get the message and bring back 4e's excellent monster stat blocks, and we'll see other important encounter-based and DM-prep involving innovations from 4e.

The most characteristic thing about 4e, in my mind, is the power system, and what it brings: lots of different mechanical options in combat for every class, and a reasonable approximation of balance at all levels. If Wizards can get those things in, through martial maneuvers and good open playtesting to weed out bad and overpowered options, then the part of me that likes 4e will be very satisfied.


----------



## slobster (May 25, 2012)

Transformer said:


> I'm still reasonably optimistic about 5e taking what's needed from 4e. A few things are in already: high 1st-level hp, "healing surges," straightforward monster xp system. Hopefully Wizards will get the message and bring back 4e's excellent monster stat blocks, and we'll see other important encounter-based and DM-prep involving innovations from 4e.




This too. I would have just xp'ed you, but the server and all that.

But yeah. Some of the very basic, nonflashy things 4E did right are already showing up, even if subtly.


----------



## redwullf (May 25, 2012)

Ellington said:


> My biggest complaint is that a lot of actions you can do have no way of failing. A ray of frost reduces a creatures speed to 0 if it hits? What the hell, man.




Missing your attack roll is a chance of failure.


----------



## Transformer (May 25, 2012)

redwullf said:


> Missing your attack roll is a chance of failure.




Definitely true. But still, there's a good chance it's too powerful for an at-will spell. Reducing speed to 0 (in a system with no attacks of opportunity) effectively locks down a powerful melee monster completely for a round. There's ample time for this to be nerfed, of course.


----------



## jadrax (May 25, 2012)

Transformer said:


> But still, there's a good chance it's too powerful for an at-will spell. Reducing speed to 0 (in a system with no attacks of opportunity) effectively locks down a powerful melee monster completely for a round.




But it also locks you down. To me that's not really too powerful, that's the kind of bog standard crowd control I expect a wizard to be able to do as a base line.


----------



## Mircoles (May 25, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> [*]Intoxicated grants DR? What gives? This reminds me of my days back in the '90s coding on MUDs, where alcohol was a healing potion that gave you attack penalties. While it's mildly amusing, the idea that adventurers have an incentive to get wasted before going into combat is stupid. I could see this effect as a feat in a "drunken master" theme, or a dwarven racial ability. It should not be a universal mechanic.




The D6 does seem a bit over generous.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 25, 2012)

jadrax said:


> But it also locks you down. To me that's not really too powerful, that's the kind of bog standard crowd control I expect a wizard to be able to do as a base line.




Heaven forbid the target be reduced to a speed of 1?

Maybe if they gave this kind power to ranged attackers using bolt weapons...


----------



## JonWake (May 25, 2012)

I finally got my hands on the playtest document.  A cursory read through makes me wonder if people got the same document as I; I've been reading a peculiar mix between cautious optimism and bowel-loosening panic all day.  

My main thought is this: I need to playtest it before I can comment on anything. There are things in the rules that look like they have some implicit complexity: seemingly simple rules that create complex situations. That's the sort of thing that doesn't show up in a read through. In fact, the only playtest I've heard from was an IRC playtest with a group who weren't fans to begin with.

Luckily, I've assembled the freaking Avengers of playtest groups.  Nathaniel Johnston of Abney Park, Twisted Trystan (he was on America's got talent), my wife Mandy McGee (seen here interviewing Felecia Day), her partner in crime Morgue Anne, and Alana Baxter, who may or may not be big in Japan.   We're recording our playtest and will be posting it soonish.


----------



## Guyanthalas (May 25, 2012)

I find it funny how many people say "its like 3e mixed with 4e" and how many are also saying "This is a lot like 2e...". Just kind of fun, and I guess that means that they did some of their job correctly?  (For the record, it feels like 2e to me).

I'm in favor of the simplification to a lot of things, but I have several greivences. 

The biggest thing that stands out to me is the lack of defenses. We are now back to AC only (yes yes, with the saving throws, i get it). I happened to like the flavor and variety the different defenses added. This skill has a lower to hit, but it hits will... so that means it will work more often on most opponents! Just felt like a more diverse system that way.

Regarding the saving throw gripe: This sounds like a lot more DM dice rolling. Before, if my creature was attacked I looked up a number. Now I have to roll dice and compare. Not a fan. Maybe houserule a static defense based on stats?

Rolling for HP? Really? I can't count how many times I've lied about my roll regarding that...

*4e Flag-Waving* I think new players will have a harder time with this system. I play a game with a bunch of our wives / girlfriends who have hardly played any D&D before, and 4e is complicated to them in a lot of respects. While I tip my hat to the "classic" feel, i'm worries its not newbie friendly enough.

If trivial checks are "checks the players shouldn't have to roll" then why are they listed with a DC? I like the idea of less checks, and am going to incorporate the idea into my 4e game.

I both love and am fearful about Advantage / Disadvantage. It seems pretty awesome out the gate, but as someone pointed out, could be a bit swingy for a d20's worth of chance. HOWEVER! My Inner-DM cannot wait for a social encounter where my players have just presented their best case to an important person trying to persuade them, and all I say is "Roll 2 twenties, and give me both the results". I think I can see the sweat dripping now...


----------



## Sonny (May 25, 2012)

So far I like it. It's exactly what they said they were shooting for. Really simple core, looks like D&D. There are some funky things in the rules that need to be ironed out, but it's a playtest. 

Also. I do like how they've changed surges to seem less gamey.


----------



## El_Gringo (May 25, 2012)

My group of 4 just got done running through our playtest. Everyone had a favorable opinion about it. I played as the cleric of Pelor and found myself throwing Radiant Lances in just about every fight until someone needed healing. Our real test was the encounter with an owlbear. 

Our wiz kept it locked down with Ray of Frost while everyone else pelted it with ranged attacks. By the time the wiz finally missed with a ray, the owlbear was already severely weakened. The halfling rogue was amazing. Being able to hide in the middle of combat is great. 

Healing is very, very, very important. It didn't seem possible to have enough of it. As soon as we ran into money, we used it for healing potions. I have a ton of other thoughts about it, but I'm too tired. If they manage to release a game similar to what we saw tonight, WotC will have earned at least one sale from a Pathfinder group.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (May 25, 2012)

My first impression is that there is some good, some bad, and some ugly (funky stuff that will likely get tweaked in playtesting).

The thing that jumped out at me the most was the check mechanic.  It seems that the random factor far outweighs the character's natural ability.

It looks like a STR 3 weakling has a decent chance (about 25% or so it seems - I haven't crunched the numbers) of beating a STR 18 bodybuilder in an armwrestling contest per the RAW.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (May 25, 2012)

WheresMyD20 said:


> My first impression is that there is some good, some bad, and some ugly (funky stuff that will likely get tweaked in playtesting).
> 
> The thing that jumped out at me the most was the check mechanic.  It seems that the random factor far outweighs the character's natural ability.
> 
> It looks like a STR 3 weakling has a decent chance (about 25% or so it seems - I haven't crunched the numbers) of beating a STR 18 bodybuilder in an armwrestling contest per the RAW.




Yeah, I think games need to stop using arm wrestling as an example of an opposed roll. Arm wrestling is a test of raw strength. There is no random element. The stronger person wins. The door example is a little better.


----------



## LordGraz'zt (May 25, 2012)

Can someone explain how removing "long rest takes you to full" makes the game more enjoyable?

Removing it would seem to create a situation where the party continually needs to return to base for days on end?


----------



## slobster (May 25, 2012)

LordGraz'zt said:


> Can someone explain how removing "long rest takes you to full" makes the game more enjoyable?
> 
> Removing it would seem to create a situation where the party continually needs to return to base for days on end?




It hurts the enjoyability of the game for the simulationist crowd. Going below bloodied is supposed to represent some actual physical wounds. With hit dice to spend, you could yo-yo back and forth across the line, accumulating an impressive number of cuts and bruises which, in real life, would take weeks to heal.

Then somehow after a good night's sleep in the forest your as fresh as if you'd walked straight out of a health spa. It's jarring in the fiction for a lot of people.

Personally I can roll with it, I've always seen HP as such a nebulous abstraction that I prefer not to strain myself by thinking about it too much. But I can see where the distaste comes from.

That's not even getting into how a full heal from a sleep cycle reinforces the 15 minute workday.


----------



## Transformer (May 25, 2012)

LordGraz'zt said:


> Can someone explain how removing "long rest takes you to full" makes the game more enjoyable?
> 
> Removing it would seem to create a situation where the party continually needs to return to base for days on end?




It would make the game more enjoyable for me by adding to my immersion. Without full overnight healing, all healing is done either my magic or by using actual first aid supplies to patch myself up for ten minutes. So it's easy to think of hp damage (or at least, hp damage below half hp, as the doc says) as meaningful if not critical wounds: gashes, sprains, bad burns, and the like.

Like I said elsewhere, I love the hit dice healing mechanic, where you can recover a significant amount of hp by mundane means out of combat given supplies. I'm not suggesting they take that out. And I even want extended rests to grant some healing. I suggested making them heal the same amount as one round of hit dice healing: hit die + con mod. 8 hours of rest does, after all, help some. Between an extended rest and hit dice mundane healing, then, I don't think anyone would have to return to base for days on end; they could heal most damage right in the dungeon without a cleric, and we also wouldn't have to deal with all hit point damage evaporating overnight without even any first aid like it was nothing at all.


----------



## MoxieFu (May 25, 2012)

hayek said:


> me as well... c'mon Wizards... please don't ruin all my excitement...




{PASTE}

Thank you for your interest in the D&D Next playtest! We are experiencing extremely high traffic which is resulting in slower than usual load times. We are implementing a solution to address this problem and will update you as soon as the fix is in place.

Please continue to check DNDNext.com for updates.

We thank you for your patience.
The D&D Team


In the words of Charlie Brown: AAAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHH!


----------



## Aegeri (May 25, 2012)

It's pretty much as bad as I feared it would be. A bunch of often randomly (or it feels that way) designed mechanics with little logic to them beyond "Older editions did this, so we're going to redo it now with different language". Perhaps all of this magically works out when you play the game (assembling my group at the moment to get together and play it), but my intial feeling from reading the rules in this playtest indicates to me I'm going to have no interest in playing this for very long at all.

I wish I could say I'm disappointed, but the legends and lore articles gave me all the indication I needed this edition was not being designed for me at all. The aspects I loved most about 4E are entirely gone and the aspects I've long since abandoned as "good design" from previous editions are back. What a shame.


----------



## Mircoles (May 25, 2012)

Too many steps back in game design for my personal tastes. Though, over all, it's the return of vancian that's the deal breaker for me. 

Does the fighter forget how to swing his ax? No he doesn't and it wouldn't make sense if he did, nor would it make sense for him to have to memorize it multiple times so that he could do it multiple times. 

Neither does it make sense for a spell caster to to do the same for their spells. It's what they spent years learning to do.

It didn't make sense to me in AD&D and never will. 

Other changes I can work around, but I will most likely just adapt the ones that I like to 4e.


----------



## erleni (May 25, 2012)

mlund said:


> Not really. You break enough of somebody's fingers and they are usually falling over themselves to mollify you and make the hurting stop.
> 
> - Marty Lund




They should rename Charm Person into Stockholm Syndrome.


----------



## nnms (May 25, 2012)

Participated in a few hours of playtesting.

Liked the rules, sort of.  Some things I didn't like:

- rolling two dice and dropping the highest or the lowest.
- full hp after a night's rest
- light, medium & heavy armour bolted on out of 3E.
- weird combination of simulation focus and the occasional very gamey effect

What I really didn't like, is how the characters work.  It's almost like the rules are for a cleaned up hybrid of all the versions of D&D with an eye to old school play, but the characters are 2E/4E hybrids with a new school vibe.  Like they don't fit in with the basic D&D style of play the rules seem to have.  I thought I would like at-wills and dailies for spells, but I didn't.

The story related traits also rubbed us the wrong way.  I'm not sure I buy that a cleric's companions all get to be healed at the temple regardless of their relationship with that particular religion.  Or that a noble will put up the companions of a Knight regardless of their own station or relationship with the governing authorities.  At least "researcher" wasn't something that gave everyone in the party library cards.

I don't know what I was expecting, but we stopped after a couple hours of play and went back to our Basic D&D retroclone game.  Updated my ENWorld status:  "Not finding 5E interesting enough to playtest it further."

I'll check in again after there's some sort of update or change.  As it stands, I'm not seeing anything that competes with other gaming options out there.


----------



## erleni (May 25, 2012)

First of all: I'm a 4venger to start with.

Anyway I'm quite interested in what I see structure-wise. DDN seems more streamlined but also faster to play. Advantage/disadvantage is a very powerful tool. 
Some stuff has clear issues (armors) but it can be easily improved.
The main problem I see is that the fighter and to some extent the thief are boring, even if they look pretty similar to 4essential classes.
If they will add maneuvers for martial characters then I could easily dig into 5e but that will be a deal breaker on my side. This fighter is ok for newbies, that can jump in with an easy character and start playing and get into D&D without too much fuss, but as a more seasoned player that likes martial characters I simply need more. 
If for example instead of fighter's surge (that can be seen as a double daily maneuver) I can take a different maneuver twice or two different ones, then I'll start to be more interested.


----------



## erleni (May 25, 2012)

nnms said:


> Participated in a few hours of playtesting.
> 
> Liked the rules, sort of. Some things I didn't like:
> 
> ...




I fully respect your opinion, but I guess it would help if you could also motivate it. For example: why didn't you like rolling twice? Is it just a gut feeling or do you see some other issue?


----------



## Argyle King (May 25, 2012)

After more playing...

I'm starting to notice that the groups I've been gaming with have started to steer clear of choosing the fighter.  There are one or two guys who have a damage fetish, and the big numbers on the character sheet attract them, but even one of them has started to notice that maybe rogue is the better choice.

I know we've been told the version of the fighter shown is the 'simple' build, but -so far- it doesn't seem very good.  Many of the issues I posted earlier seem to actually be there now that I have more experience with the rules instead of being gut reactions from a first glance.  I still want to try a few different scenarios before offering solid criticism though.  

On a side note, I think future playtests should use more than one adventure if possible.  Playing Caves of Chaos over and over again does not give me a very good idea about how certain things would play out in different game styles.


----------



## Lwaxy (May 25, 2012)

I'm only going to mention what I do not like, as that's a way shorter list than my likes so far. 

If the silliness of long rest = HP back is in, then that is the very second thing to house rule. Right after kicking out the intoxication stuff as it is now. 

Third is the economy nonsense. 

No one tells me that you would get full market price loot all the time everywhere. That's just ridiculous to assume and would also take half the fun out of selling things, i.e. where to find the right dealer, who to trade with... 

It gets worse with the magic stuff. Asides from no one telling me how my world looks like, thank you very much, even if we go by the assumption that almost no one but us makes any money to buy magic items, what in the world prevents us to sell for half the market price, or trade it for something etc? 

So either it is there ARE no magic items in the world save a few artifacts (sorry but my worlds don't want to follow that rule) or the prices drop dramatically once the party notices no one can buy at their true value. Which in turn makes them available for a wider public, which also means it will be easier to find something to buy... 

I'm not even getting into prices of armor and weapons and the electrum coin. We'll keep using adamantine as next up to platinum as always 


But other than that, can't wait to play tonight.


----------



## Traken (May 25, 2012)

Things that stood out as awesome:

*Movement simplified.*  You get this much movement every turn.  Use it when you want.  This is how far you can jump.  This is how far you can swim.  You don't have to spend your entire turn standing up to just get knocked down again.  You can do a battle crawl that isn't slower than a slug.

*Advantage/Disadvantage.* Simple.  More meaningful than a +2/-2 mechanic.  You roll the dice at the same time, saving time at the table.  

*DM empowerment.*  It says it right there in the condition rules.  A DM is free to adjucate that other things happen when you have X condition.


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu (May 25, 2012)

Reading the Zombie-entry in the bestiary, I miss the hilarious (and unique) zombie trait from 4E: Zombie weakness. If a zombie is hit with a critical hit, it is instantly destroyed. Bring back zombie weakness!


----------



## Traken (May 25, 2012)

Awesome things in the DM guidelines:

*Dice don't rule the game*.  Something that should have always been true but can't be said enough.  

*Incidental actions*.  Another example of the rules getting out of the way until necessary.

*Specific rules relegated to DM*.  The rules for balance and picking locks are in the DMs guide.  This doesn't give the players the idea that those are the _only_ actions they are able to do.


----------



## Herschel (May 25, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Hm, haven't thought of this. Touché. But what about the clergy of other religions that place high importance into status and would kick you outa the door if you arrive with a wooden weapon of the poor? There is more to weapons than just the raw mechanics, that's all I'm saying. It can be handled as an important status symbol by the DM if he wants to. Story and all that jazz.
> 
> -YRUSirius




So the only way to properly role play is to make stupid choices with your character? That's just ignorant, both in design and in play philosophy.

Also, if they'd kick you out on that dogmatic minutia they have lost their way and should be driven from the church. There's your story.


----------



## justinhalliday (May 25, 2012)

I was looking forward to this, but after a read-through it looks a bit too regressive for me.

My expanded thoughts on the rules:

http://heroesagainstdarkness.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/d-next-early-thoughts-and-opinions.html

I think they're deliberately avoiding _any_ terminology from 4th Edition. And the problem with the _Fighter's Surge_ power is that it will encourage a 15 minute workday, because those two extra actions are likely to get used in rounds 1 and 2 of the first fight.


----------



## Herschel (May 25, 2012)

The more I look at it, the more it reminds me of where 2E could (should?) have gone in the Skills & Powers/Combat & Tactics era. That would have been fine 20 years ago but now won't cut it. 

The full Dex for light armor/1/2 for medium/none for heavy was a house rule I made over two decades ago (chain, ring and scale were medium armor). 

There are no actual spells on the Wizard's character sheet, just a list and a bunch of text. 

The Class/Background/Theme system certainly seems modular, except what is shown is rather bland and half-azzed. It's like wanting a good dark or stout and getting served a Bud Light with a wedge of lemon, lime, a bit of Tobasco on the side.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (May 25, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> Yeah, I think games need to stop using arm wrestling as an example of an opposed roll. Arm wrestling is a test of raw strength. There is no random element. The stronger person wins. The door example is a little better.




Regardless of the example, the random element in the check mechanic definitely outweighs the ability element.  When a character with an ability score of 3 has roughly a 1-in-4 chance of outperforming a character with an ability score of 18, the randomness of the check mechanic seems to be too high.


----------



## keterys (May 25, 2012)

jasin said:


> To me it looks like there's a very good case for +2 to attack if you're proficient; carried over from 4E, explicit for magic attacks, seemingly included for everyone, implied by the comment about improvised weapons getting no bonus.
> 
> On top of that, fighters and wizards apparently get another +1.
> 
> ...



Let's not forget the very real possibility that these are pregens, and there are mistakes on them.

Pregens almost always have mistakes.


----------



## Larkas (May 25, 2012)

To me, the systems seems like a healthy blend of all the previous editions.

It feels as simple as OD&D, as robust as AD&D2E and, when necessary, as complex as D&D3E. That is an auto-win in my book. They took a step back, an in doing so, took four steps forward. This DEFINITELY feels like D&D to me. I liked the spell presentation, I liked the races, I liked the alignments, I liked the checks mechanics... This seems like a sturdy start to a game system. If they really play to the purported "modular" strengths, it will be a VERY interesting RPG to play.


----------



## Guyanthalas (May 25, 2012)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Regardless of the example, the random element in the check mechanic definitely outweighs the ability element. When a character with an ability score of 3 has roughly a 1-in-4 chance of outperforming a character with an ability score of 18, the randomness of the check mechanic seems to be too high.




This is a far too literal interpretation of the rules. We will go with the minimum breaking point, 3str rolls 15 and 18str rolls 6.

The brute strength vs. brute strength is valid, and the dice should not even bother to roll in this scenario. 



			
				How To Play said:
			
		

> You determine an action the players attempt has a chance of failure




However, let us assume you wanted the dice to roll. Dice don't have to represent exactly the occurence that is going on, but all factors of luck that can contribute to this. What if you are pushing a door closed, but you step in some slippery goblin entrails (roll a 6). Sorry, luck screwed you over.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 25, 2012)

First post, the packets seem to represent possible books:

*MM* = Bestiary (why have this otherwise, we have monster stats in the adventure)
*PHB* = How To Play 
*DMG* = DM Guidelines 

5 PC Sheets  = *Character Sheet support product*
Caves of Chaos = *Adventure product*


----------



## delericho (May 25, 2012)

Actually, I thought it looked really good. I was very surprised, and pleasantly so.

There are a couple of things I spotted that I really don't like, and I think the Race/Class/Background/Theme thing, especially if you add Schemes, Domains and whatever else to the mix, it probably one or two steps too far.

Still, all in all... yeah, I think I like it.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 25, 2012)

Guyanthalas said:


> However, let us assume you wanted the dice to roll. Dice don't have to represent exactly the occurence that is going on, but all factors of luck that can contribute to this. What if you are pushing a door closed, but you step in some slippery goblin entrails (roll a 6). Sorry, luck screwed you over.




I think it's a bad idea to quote protected text. You can easily summarize it in your own words, but bearers of that document are under a legally binding agreement.


----------



## Thraug (May 25, 2012)

LordGraz'zt said:


> Can someone explain how removing "long rest takes you to full" makes the game more enjoyable?
> 
> Removing it would seem to create a situation where the party continually needs to return to base for days on end?




Mostly it's the complete breakage of narrative plausibility for campaigns that don't adhere to the multiple encounter per day mantra. This rule would severely hinder the immersion of a sandbox or overland exploration campaign where wear & tear and enduring the elements and combat wounds is important to the story.

Paste of a portion of my post above:
Allowing a character to heal up to 100% HP and HD after one Long Rest:

eliminates story elements that stem from lasting injuries/wounds/wear or enduring treacherous journeys.
forces isolated combat encounters (1/day max) to be very difficult to be challenging or be a pushover at normal difficulty.
reduces plausibility and suspension of disbelief of being on a long and hard grueling adventure


----------



## Thraug (May 25, 2012)

Transformer said:


> Definitely true. But still, there's a good chance it's too powerful for an at-will spell. Reducing speed to 0 (in a system with no attacks of opportunity) effectively locks down a powerful melee monster completely for a round. There's ample time for this to be nerfed, of course.




The "Ready an Action" rule allows the victim to attack anyone coming into reach. Yes, it does nothing if the entire party is ranged.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 25, 2012)

Herschel said:


> So the only way to properly role play is to make stupid choices with your character?




Erm... no?

Btw, we're talking about something like a 5 gp difference between the mace and the club, right? FIVE gp. The second encounter in the caves of chaos has a treasure worth 15 gp. REAAALLY horrible, ignorant and stupid design. Way to go, dude.

-YRUSirius


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 25, 2012)

First Impressions:

This a work in progress. Given the amount of development and editing these documents have likely seen in the last 6+ months, there's a lot of thought behind everything.

It's confusing. Not the formatting, which I wouldn't expect a final draft of. There are definitely rules in place here that really only support specific play styles, from old to millennial to contemporary. There is a lot of 4e school of thought here, but when I go looking a whole lot of it is 3.x too. Shake that up with so much of the old school stuff that doesn't quite know why it's there and the whole comes off as confused. Again, a work in progress.

Many schema in place aren't just necessary. I mentioned breaking the texts into book clumps before, I don't think you need to do that. I'm not seeing the rationale for having equipment in relation to exploration (or anything else). The three tiers of play look like skills, skills, and combat. Let's think outside the box here. 

The adventure is going to be difficult to run. It looks a little bland and way overpriced XP-wise for 3 levels. It's appears to be combats all the way through. I like the format and the do-it-yourself attitude with advice in the front, but it needs fleshing out with examples for that. We can place our own monsters too (unless I missed a hidden scheme for that), but it could definitely use some "What they know, what happened before, and what will happen if left unengaged" and stuff like that. 

Best thing so far: the beginning. Those first two paragraphs in How to Play. That blended well the old school and new school philosophies and phraseology.  I would lead with that and definitely trim down the packet size of this thing. In no way do we need all this info for the first, short-term phase of a long play testing. Let's get focused. It scares me that this looks like everything otherwise as it is a heap o' work.


----------



## nnms (May 25, 2012)

erleni said:


> I fully respect your opinion, but I guess it would help if you could also motivate it. For example: why didn't you like rolling twice? Is it just a gut feeling or do you see some other issue?




Prepare for a dump of dislikes that are a tangle of logic, illogic and personal preference.   If anyone wants to pull one out and use it as a demonstration that I'm being unreasonable, feel free.  I concede in advance.  This is about what I'm looking to get out of the game and not about the "universal truth" of RPG design (as if there could even be such a thing).  Some of these issues are present in other RPGs I play, but to a lesser degree.

Two reasons for the double d20 dislike:

1) We play on couches and have enough issues with wayward dice without doubling the rolling of the round ones.  So we ended up either having to use something to roll into or rolling one d20 and then rerolling it.  Not a huge issue, but still a consideration.  We don't play dice pool games for the same reason.

2) We have a couple programmers and math people in our group who don't like the variable nature of the advantage the math gives.

3) No granularity in modifiers.  While I'm not a fan of a huge chart of +1 for this and -1 for this, I find they get internalized and applied really easily.  The extra dice is just an on/off always the same approach.  Like "combat advantage" being always a +2 to hit in 4E regardless of what the fictional circumstances actually are.

4) factors get ignored as you only ever roll two and drop one.

Full HP after a night's rest:

1) Constrains our in combat narration of injuries.  Given how only going below zero is now a serious injury, we found it boring to narrate maximum damage roll hits as near misses and scratches that will be gone with a single sleep.

3E Heavy/Medium/Light armour

1) Didn't like the "there's an optimal choice for my character and the rest are dumb" approach to it then, don't like it now. 

2) In medieval times, people didn't take leather into a fight if they could have their body covered in metal.   It also perpetuates the myth that you can't move dexterously in heavier armour, which is all based on things like accounta of fat old man who couldn't get onto his horse without help.  Not a huge issue, but a pet peeve of mine.

Weird combination of simulation approach and then weird gamey elements

1) Intoxicated making you give damage resistance.  Fun, I suppose.  But drunk people are more prone to injury, not less (check the studies of hospital emergency room admissions)

2) Surprise.  -20 to initiative?  Why not just say surprised creatures go last.  In case of a tie, figure it out using any tie breaking method you like.

3) Reactions taking your action away.  I get it that you don't want to give people double turns, but these rounds are 6 seconds, not one or two.

4) Searching in combat takes your action.  Makes stealth very, very powerful in combat.

5) Massive negative HP.  I guess I'm a fan of hitting zero and saving or dying each round.  I dislike how you can look at taking d6 damage in a round and decide "we don't need to stabilize him yet, he can't die for 2 rounds even if he fails all his saves."

6) Healer's kit.  While I like the idea that you need first aid supplies, why is this fine detail in there right alongside just healing all injuries overnight unless you're at 0 or less?  Tracking bandages, but then all wounds just disappear?  Seems inconsistent.

7) Don't bother dressing your wounds if you're just going to sleep.  You need a healer's kit for short rests, but if you take a long rest, don't bother bandaging or cleaning your wounds.  They'll just seal up without doing crazy stuff like first aid.

8) You can just sell everything for half it's price!  Yes, I know it's a quick solution, but it makes assumptions about the fantasy world and the specific locale that might not be true.  As has been pointed out, you can buy 10 foot ladders for 5 cp, break them apart and remove the rungs and sell them as two 10 foot poles for 2 sp total.  

9) Armours that historically didn't have wide usage at the same time are all available at once with some crappy justification that D&D worlds are always a mish-mash of different cultures.  What if they're not?  And if they were, wouldn't the best armours get widespread use and the other fall out of fashion really quickly?

10) Why is chain shirt light?  It just hangs on your shoulders and drags you down.  But then ringmail, which is often made of metal attached to a leather backing with much better weight distribution is medium?

11) Light shields?  Why even bother?  The only reason they were even in 4E was to give certain classes of certain roles access to a certain average armour class.

12) Long bows are simple weapons?  Someone should have told the Genoese mercenaries to ditch their heavy crossbows because Long bows are so much easier to use.

13) Non-mundane items like alchemists fire, anti-venom, poison and acid in the default equipment list.  Again,  makes setting assumptions.

14) Ritual components pouch.  I detest gold being used to power rituals in a generic manner like this.  I have fond memories of 2E where certain rare ingredient finds suddenly opened up a new avenue of magic.  Yes, tracking spell components can get tedius fast, but neither do I like spending gold as a substitute.  As if money buys magic.


----------



## rkwoodard (May 25, 2012)

*10th time*



Herschel said:


> The more I look at it, the more it reminds me of where 2E could (should?) have gone in the Skills & Powers/Combat & Tactics era. That would have been fine 20 years ago but now won't cut it.
> 
> The full Dex for light armor/1/2 for medium/none for heavy was a house rule I made over two decades ago (chain, ring and scale were medium armor).
> 
> ...





This is about the 10th post I have seen across the threads where I agree with the analysis but disagree with the opinion. Shows the the WOTC team has their work cut out for them.

My first impression was that they went back to 2nd, updated it to 3rd edition mindset and added some 4th edition quirks.  

I like that approach and I am looking forward to actually running the playtest and hope that the development stays on this course.

I agree about the blandness, but, I am being optimistic that is simply a function of a very small focused playtest. I can see where it could really open up to being very flavorful.

RK


----------



## Herschel (May 25, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Erm... no?
> 
> Btw, we're talking about something like a 5 gp difference between the mace and the club, right? FIVE gp. The second encounter in the caves of chaos has a treasure worth 15 gp. REAAALLY horrible, ignorant and stupid design. Way to go, dude.
> 
> -YRUSirius




Split five ways that 3GP each, and you need food, shelter, herbalist gear, etc. Math is hard, huh? 

 And when you're starting out (which is where the playtest starts) you have limited cash. You may have been a soldier, teacher, farmer, fisherman, cobbler, blacksmith, etc. and how well do those professions pay? Peasants don't deal in gp, they deal in copper and a few silver.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 25, 2012)

My first impression is this is a game that I could play. It has traces of 4E for sure, and some of the stuff I simply dislike, but it isn't overwhelmingly negative in the way 4e was for me (and it definitely feels more like D&D again ). Not crazy about themes (which seem centered around combat and working roles into the game (thankfully they are in the backseat now). Really don't like HD, the healing rates are way too fast for my taste (if characters can get back to full in 24 hours, it feels like a cartoon to me). Not digging some of the class abilities, especially the fighter surge. But I can live with these things. Like backgrounds. Love that vancian magic is back. Excited to actulaly run the thing this weekend and see how it plays.


----------



## nnms (May 25, 2012)

Herschel said:


> Split five ways that 3GP each, and you need food, shelter, herbalist gear, etc. Math is hard, huh?
> 
> And when you're starting out (which is where the playtest starts) you have limited cash. You may have been a soldier, teacher, farmer, fisherman, cobbler, blacksmith, etc. and how well do those professions pay? Peasants don't deal in gp, they deal in copper and a few silver.




Total up the value of the equipment on the pregens.  These people are quite well off to get their hands on that much loot to go adventuring.  There's more than enough GP to have subbed out one thing to get whatever is the optimal equipment.

The cleric of pelor has 150 gp just in the anti-toxin, healing potion and healer's kit.  Another 50 gp for the scale armour.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 25, 2012)

Herschel said:


> Split five ways that 3GP each, and you need food, shelter, herbalist gear, etc. Math is hard, huh?




Oh, my god. You're right. This game is broken.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Herschel (May 25, 2012)

nnms said:


> Total up the value of the equipment on the pregens. These people are quite well off to get their hands on that much loot to go adventuring. There's more than enough GP to have subbed out one thing to get whatever is the optimal equipment.
> 
> The cleric of pelor has 150 gp just in the anti-toxin, healing potion and healer's kit. Another 50 gp for the scale armour.




Exactly, starting characters have gotten their hands on a good, but limited amount of cash. They need a lot of gear though and what should they give up, their Healer's Kit in order to buy a fancier club? The optimal thing to do is get the most bang-for-your-buck, which is the club. If you want that facy mace, you wait it's a luxury item.


----------



## Herschel (May 25, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Oh, my god. You're right. This game is broken.
> 
> -YRUSirius




No, the economy is messed up but you'd have to understand basic math and economics to grok that.

Someone doesn't understand the "no insult" rule. Bye. - PCat


----------



## Odhanan (May 25, 2012)

Some thoughts.

This is a role playing game system. By which I mean it does not come off as an hybrid, a board game, a video game, a story game, etc. It's a role playing game. 

You could possibly play actual D&D with this. By which I mean "dungeons and dragons", i.e. explore the unknown, face various threats and challenges in so doing, with the promise of rewards or death.

This is not a game in the O/AD&D tradition. It is a game more in the tradition of 2nd edition AD&D and Rules Cyclopedia, maybe, with a rules mesh that is heavily borrowed from 3rd and 4th editions broken down to their barest expressions. It borrows from the old editions in terms of vibe, and you could run your game in such a way as to make it feel very much like a traditional version of the game (like you could run 2nd ed in a traditional way), but what I'm seeing in these playtest documents isn't 'old school'. 

I like some things, dislike others, but in my mind, it's not because the game isn't 'old school' that it's automatically bad, or because it'd be 'old school' it'd be automatically good. These are different considerations to me.

The power curve is flatlined, the math of the game is greatly simplified. That is a good thing. There are still modifiers to deal with and "math going on," adding ability modifiers plus skill modifiers and whatnot. That is not so good.

The codification of the character sheets rubs me the wrong way. I get that these are introductory pieces to the game, but some of the tone and the wording of the features, feats etc. reminds me too much of 3rd/4th ed's nitpicky definition of terms. I don't like this. 

Love the Backgrounds and their set of skills and particular thing that makes them stand apart: they're simple, straightforward, and can add a lot to a character. 

I am FAR more ambivalent to the notion of Theme as expressed here in these documents, which to me look like a codification of 4e's notion of "Roles" in a metagame sense - the striker, the controller, etc. I don’t want that in my game.

I like advantages and disadvantages. They're relatively simple to use and adjudicate, their effect is simple (roll two dice and take the highest/lowest results and poof, done), that can be used with or without minis... it's good. Keep this.

Skills as stuff you do that is expressed as a modifier as part of a class feature, background or whatnot is cool with me. Not having a laundry list of predetermined, edge-defined skills on the character sheet is a very good thing.

The concept of at-wills cantrips for Wizards gets a big "meh" from me, but I can live with it (and house rule it right out of the gate if needs be).

Some abilities of classes rub me the wrong way, such as the fighter's surge, which is arbitrarily set at two times per day, or the dwarf fighter doing damage when he doesn’t hit stuff. "It's just a game, forget about it." Meh. 

Some feats showing up in Themes look very much like "feats" in a 3rd ed sense to me, and I do not like this at all.

I like the increase in damage output that meshes well with the changes in hit point determination. More HP, more damage output. The death threshold in negative HPs is WAY too low, however. I would house rule that for my home campaign and get back to something like -10 HPs.

The Hit Points recuperation mechanics are made of suck. This is forcing a play style on me I don't necessarily want when I am playing D&D, which is basically that you manage your short rests between "encounters" until you reach the end of the day, at which point you regain all your hit points magically. I have to assume magically, because apparently the physical part of the hit point abstraction has been thrown out the window: it's ALL luck and skill and fatigue, and no actual health, unless of course all your wounds magically close up after a period of 24 hours? Now I like the *idea* of rolling the hit dice for HP recuperation and managing the number of dice somehow. I just know I would house rule the rests mechanics right out the gate were I to run my campaign with this set of rules. 

I don’t like it so much it’s pretty much a deal-breaker, actually: I don’t know if I would even bother trying to find a house rule for this. It’s so fundamental to the game that it’s going to influence the modules and set ups of encounters from there. It is really NOT good at all. All strategic considerations in terms of health are excised from the game. All that matters is the immediate short term tactical management in a 24 hour period. At LEAST nuke that full HP regeneration during long rests, and please either don’t give all HDs back or find a way to mitigate their use, too. Maybe reintroduce the Bloodied condition at half HPs, and you can’t spend HDs on short rests while you are Bloodied. Something like that. Seriously, WTF were you thinking, guys? 

The monster writeups are alright as far as I can tell, so far. EDIT - but some of their abilities feel "gamey", like they are just there for the sake of differenciating monsters from each other, rather than being descriptive elements tied to the game world. 

If the Enervation ability of the Wight (in the Bestiary) is anything to go by as far as level drain is concerned, this totally stinks, as far as I'm concerned. Everything seems to be short term, "until the next long rest". The basic unit of the game becomes "the next 24 hours". All the strategic aspects of game play seem to have been nuked beyond that. This totally blows.

Some instances of dissociated mechanics annoy me too, such as the fighter's surge, the dwarf fighter's ability do deal damage even when he doesn't hit his target, etc. I thought WotC had gotten the message on this one, but then again... maybe not.

Individual initiative with different mods, I've done it with 3rd ed and 3.5, I'm not going back to it and the way it slows down combat considerably. I would house rule it using a Holmes/Moldvay round structure and group d6 rolls right out of the gate.


----------



## Li Shenron (May 25, 2012)

My first impression on the overall playtesting rules draft is that it feels a lot like a significantly simplified 3rd edition.

Which means to me that it is *great*, because this draft is most likely about the smallest core of rules, so it has to be simple, and yet the fact that many things are similar to 3ed means that practically every player of 3.0/3.5/PF can jump to 5e (without modules) in nearly no time.


----------



## rkwoodard (May 25, 2012)

nnms said:


> Total up the value of the equipment on the pregens. These people are quite well off to get their hands on that much loot to go adventuring. There's more than enough GP to have subbed out one thing to get whatever is the optimal equipment.
> 
> The cleric of pelor has 150 gp just in the anti-toxin, healing potion and healer's kit. Another 50 gp for the scale armour.





But not out of pocket.  The Herbalism feature gives one free  anti-toxin, healing potion and healer's kit, and it only cost 25 gold for them afterwards (if I am reading that part right).

RK


----------



## nnms (May 25, 2012)

rkwoodard said:


> But not out of pocket.  The Herbalism feature gives one free  anti-toxin, healing potion and healer's kit, and it only cost 25 gold for them afterwards (if I am reading that part right).
> 
> RK




Yes, you are correct.  I was wrong about that.  My bad!


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 25, 2012)

Very pleased, a return to Basic D&D (Moldvay, 80/81), but mass room to expand.


----------



## Guyanthalas (May 25, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> Some thoughts.
> 
> This is a role playing game system. By which I mean it does not come off as an hybrid, a board game, a video game, a story game, etc. It's a role playing game.
> ...
> I would house rule it using a Holmes/Moldvay round structure and group d6 rolls right out of the gate.




My first reply was going to be "Dude, so which edition do you _actually_ enjoy?"... then I read your status. 

The single biggest complaint I've been seeing is about hit points, and how they magically come back after a good night's rest. (Regarding basic, core mechanics. I feel if we criticize, these are the starting points). 

So what are hit points? WotC seems to be a bit conflicted on this, if you compare the playtest to Legends and Lore. I've viewed them as how much punnishment you can take, not the overly drastic measures that some people might view.

If a troll tears off my arm during a combat, I'll be taking a crazy amount of hit points worth of damage. The loss of blood, trauma, etc will make me exceptionally weak. However, do I have to have my arm grow back in order to have all of my hitpoints back? I don't think that is the case. 

In most combats, if you are reduced to 0 HP, it might just be reflective of the amount of physical punnishment your body has taken. (Think of a KO during a boxing match). Why can't a nights rest (food, water, relaxation) fix this?

I agree that my first example (arm amputation) cannot be fixed by a nights sleep. But I also don't think that 0 HP means that you have major broken bones or severed arteries.

That is my take at least. I'm curious how the "anti-full after sleep" camp views what a reduction in hitpoints means and why a night's rest cannot fix it.


----------



## Arytiss (May 25, 2012)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Regardless of the example, the random element in the check mechanic definitely outweighs the ability element.  When a character with an ability score of 3 has roughly a 1-in-4 chance of outperforming a character with an ability score of 18, the randomness of the check mechanic seems to be too high.




Only if the DM decides to call for a contest, and this situation pretty much falls under the circumstances laid out in the DM guidelines that says "Don't bother".

My first impression was that of a streamlined 3rd edition. My second thoughts was that it was closer to 2nd edition. Now I'm looking at it again and seeing a very strong 4th ed influence in the class design. Looks like WotC are doing well at fulfilling their goals so far.

Mechanics: I like that there seem to be very few +/- modifiers. My old 4th ed group had a serious problem with these. Over half the group were dyslexic and every time one of them rolled the dice they would then have to spend five minutes counting their modifiers to hit and then working out their damage. I suspect that with the Advantage/Disadvantage system life would have been much, much easier.

Armour, as has been said repeatedly, needs work. Lots of work.

Themes and Backgrounds are very nice. I can build a character in five minutes and it will actually feel like a character, rather than a bunch of numbers. I'm looking forward to seeing more of this in a few months.

Pointing out that not everything needs a roll: I played Keep on the Borderlands (Using BRP Fantasy) a month ago and the GM asked for calls for everything. Everything. It really made me realise how much of gameplay doesn't need rolling. I particularly liked their example of the player giving a rousing speech eliminating the need for a Diplomacy roll.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 25, 2012)

I said this on another thread, but i do not like the idea of characters regaining all lost HP with one night's kip, I'm thinking a character heals their HP in HD over a night's rest, so a 10th level Cleric would heal 10d8 HP after an extended rest.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 25, 2012)

Looks like a game that is fun to play. Some details need fine tuning. (I particularly don´t like that you can easily move out of melee and shoot)

Overall that game looks as if you could play it and have fun. Backgrounds and themes give modularity, but in big chunks. Looks great so far.


----------



## Arytiss (May 25, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Looks like a game that is fun to play. Some details need fine tuning. (I particularly don´t like that you can easily move out of melee and shoot)



Technically you could do that in all the previous editions as well. They just used different terms for it: 5-foot step, shift, etc.


----------



## Minigiant (May 25, 2012)

Okay. I will pat myself on the back.

Rogue Schemes- mix of Theme and Background- I Predicted it
Cantrips are at-will- I Predicted it.
Fighters get damage bonus linked to level- I Predicted it.
Clerics get Channel Divinity for 4e- I predicted it
Magic Theme grants cantrips- I predicted it.
Slayer theme is Reaping strike and Cleave- I expected it. Didn't predict it exactly.
Guardian them halts movement- I predicted it.

I am a diviner, dog.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 25, 2012)

Arytiss said:


> Technically you could do that in all the previous editions as well. They just used different terms for it: 5-foot step, shift, etc.



yes, and this is why i want a new edition.

Why have a penalty for shooting in melee when you can go 1 step back, shoot and go one step in again?

I think opportunity attacks are missing for leaving threatened areas.


----------



## Dausuul (May 25, 2012)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Regardless of the example, the random element in the check mechanic definitely outweighs the ability element.  When a character with an ability score of 3 has roughly a 1-in-4 chance of outperforming a character with an ability score of 18, the randomness of the check mechanic seems to be too high.




I agree, it's excessive.

The problem here is that D&DN models superior skill in combat by scaling hit points and damage rather than attack and defense values. Which is fine and all, but it doesn't translate. So the game can represent large differences in combat skill, but not in any other skill.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 26, 2012)

Considering this is a early playtest version and I'm going of gut reaction and preconcieved notions, I like pretty much the whole thing.

The only thing that really puts me of is the long rest heals completely matter. At a quick glance, my issues with that:

-It goes completely against my own personal preferences, that are otherwise well supported

-I already know this might be a total deal breaker for one of my prospective players

-It's inconsistent with other healing rules. You need bandages for hp healing over the day, but when you go asleep hp are suddenly completely divorced from physical damage?

-It's exactly the opposite from what we heard from previous playtests and Mike Mearls recent L&L article that was written when the package was almost finished

I suspect/hope that this isn't the real deal on healing rules, but a quick and dirty solution for the first round playtest, so it runs quicker and can stay "on scene".


----------



## NMcCoy (May 26, 2012)

There's some funkiness with how certain rules interact, possibly as an artifact of merged systems. Ranged attacks against prone creatures have disadvantage, unless the attacker is adjacent - but you also have disadvantage when making a ranged attack in melee reach of an enemy...


----------



## grimslade (May 26, 2012)

I am pleasantly surprised by the rules so far. It is a playtest version so there are lots of tweaks that need to be made, but, on the whole, I am impressed.

Top 3 Likes

Dis/advantage- Remove bonii and roll 2d20 and drop one. Very swingy. Very potent. I was worried about it on paper but love it in play. The infamous medusa encounter was terrifying with disadvantage for the PCs and advantage for her. The fighter went reckless to stop the pain and wound up stoned on the final round.

Combat is fast. Blazing. Even with no rules familiarity. 

The cleric looks like it will be a fun class to build. Laser vs smite 'n board will be a tough choice.

Top 3 dislikes

Complete heal after long rest. I liked the Legend and Lore breakdown of > bloodied is morale or fighting spirit, < bloodied is cuts, bruises and sprains, 0 and less is a wound. The 8 hr rest and all better does not reflect this. I would like to see a refresh of up to half hp(your up to bloodied value) per 8 hour rest. If you take a wound (hit 0) you can not replenish HD until you have rested as many days as negative hit points received. Magical healing reduces 1 day per hit point healed. 

Fighters seem a bit weak. 2 surges make them sexy shoeless gods of war but the rest of the time they seem too basic and lower damage. Maneuvers will help but a basic fighter should still dish out the hurt round to round.

Herbalism is too much to not break the economy. Action economy holds the healing in check in combat somewhat. It is still the Wand of Cure Light Wounds from 3.x in 5E. Out of HD to heal during a short rest? The Herbalist with Healer's Touch will have everyone up and full for minimal gold.


Good start let's iron out these kinks.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

My first impression is that it looks like D&D, but there are some serious problems.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (May 26, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I agree, it's excessive.
> 
> The problem here is that D&DN models superior skill in combat by scaling hit points and damage rather than attack and defense values. Which is fine and all, but it doesn't translate. So the game can represent large differences in combat skill, but not in any other skill.




I was thinking a little more about the randomness of ability checks today.  If a 3d6 roll were used instead of the standard die roll, that would go a long way towards alleviating the problem of excessive randomness.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (May 26, 2012)

Guyanthalas said:


> This is a far too literal interpretation of the rules. We will go with the minimum breaking point, 3str rolls 15 and 18str rolls 6.




The problem with ability checks as written is that random factor is a wide range (20 points) and is linearly distributed.  The ability factor is a smaller range (9 points) and is distributed on the bell curve (assuming classic D&D roll for ability scores).  Because of this, the random factor of a check overwhelms the ability factor.  The check mechanic really only works for tests that are essentially random, where a character's natural ability only plays a minor role in success or failure.


----------



## Andor (May 26, 2012)

grimslade said:


> Herbalism is too much to not break the economy. Action economy holds the healing in check in combat somewhat. It is still the Wand of Cure Light Wounds from 3.x in 5E. Out of HD to heal during a short rest? The Herbalist with Healer's Touch will have everyone up and full for minimal gold.
> 
> Good start let's iron out these kinks.




Pffft. I made almost this exact rule in my D&D basic game once, back in the day. (Technically I ruled that a Potion of CLW was a vial of holy water with a spell that had a bless or something cast on it. The component cost totaled to 25 gp IIRC.) 

It broke nothing but saved the party's bacon plenty at low levels. At high level play there is no way to prevent the party from turning gold into HP. HP loss does not endure between combats at high level play. It never has, it never will. Once spells are exhausted however the party will still turn cautious becuase swigging a potion for 8hp is not a good use of your turn in mid-combat at 12th level.

Of course in part that rule was a reaction to the prevelance of CLW potions in the hands of every NPC in D&D basic, while the rules implied that Odysseus, Chu Cullain, Gandalf and Merlin _might_ have been able to make one. After questing together for a year or three, of course, you wouldn't want it to seem easy.


----------



## Argyle King (May 26, 2012)

WheresMyD20 said:


> I was thinking a little more about the randomness of ability checks today.  If a 3d6 roll were used instead of the standard die roll, that would go a long way towards alleviating the problem of excessive randomness.





I agree.  A little bit of a bell curve would help D&D Durango greatly.

However, since -I imagine- most people would want to keep the same range of numbers for simplicity's sake, I'd suggest 2d10.  There would be less of a curve than 3d6, but your number range is the same (with the exception of not being able to roll a 1.)


----------



## Kavon (May 27, 2012)

Haven't read it through all in all, but did skim over it and read things that interested me. Also, haven't had a chance to actually try it out in play.

Some general things:

I like the advantage/disadvantage thing. Saves me from those times where I have to wonder if it was -2, -4, or just 50% chance to miss, and then having to look it up and trying to remember where exactly it was mentioned.

I believe the Intoxicated bit has been discussed enough - it's a funny little thing, but I'm not sure if it's a good thing to have as it is now.


The Pregens:

I like that with the two cleric characters, you can see the two being pretty different thanks to their theme (I prefer such flexibility).

Humans, what do they get? I recall someone mentioning that they seem to get +1 to all ability scores?

Dwarves and elves being immune to things.. on one hand I like the simplicity, but on the other hand it somehow seems too much.

I like that there's Herbalism. Not sure on the execution, but I can see some potential for other things as well (other profession-like things that can give some nice bonus stuff).

I'm curious about how much difference in attack bonus there will be from min to max level, and how you might get these.

Anything else will have to wait till I see them in action, I guess.


Death/dying:

I like that beyond 0 HP, it's not like in 3e where everyone dies at -10, regardless of level, but it's not as extreme as 4e, where you have tons of HP left to go through. Failing that death save is rather nasty as well, compared to just taking 1 point of damage in 3e..


Spell descriptions:

I like the classic feel, but I hate having to wade through a wall of text to find all the bits I need (with a high chance of missing something important on the fly).

I like the Minor Spells, though Magic Missile should scale less quickly and other such offensive Minor Spells should also scale, or they should not scale at all.
I like the spells scaling with spell slots.
I like the Ritual use of spells (not sold on material components), though this doesn't seem to be used all that much with the spells given... Just once, from what I can tell?


Monster descriptions:

Looks fine to me, nice classic feel, like with the spells.

But then I don't want to reference a different book when I'm looking at what a certain monster can bring to an encounter, even if it's an actual NPC spellcaster.

I believe Planesailing said something about this, but I would have to disagree with him.
He said something like that with pre-4e he memorized the spells and therefore had no problems using monster spell-like abilities.
With 4e monsters having 'unique' abilities they would need to be read from the monster's description and there might be things missed that way.
Alright, I can see how that would be annoying like that.
Ok, now imagine the second case, but you would also have to reference a different book each time - how much worse would that be?

Also, lack of level feels weird, but I'm not sure it's so bad, since you'd just look at the exp it gives.


Equipment:

The armor list looks pretty bad, if you ask me..

Heavy armor needs some sort of advantage if it doesn't give the highest AC (to counteract the penalties).

Medium armor.. erm. I like the general idea that there's something inbetween light and heavy, and half Dex bonus is alright for it, but it's not enough to make someone not take a light armor if their Dex is high-ish or a heavy armor if it isn't.

All in all, needs a lot of work.

As for weapons.. Why is the heavy x-bow complex? No more composite bows? Some weapons being exactly the same, statistically, except for their purchase cost, is.. I don't know, lazy design? 


Economy:

Still a mess. Has this ever been anywhere close to realistic?
Wasn't there talk of there being a silver standard some time ago?
Using copper and silver pieces, with gold being something for higher levels seems to me like a step in the right direction.. The way it is now, you'll end up with ridiculous amounts of gold again.


Thoughts on the HP issue:

IIRC, the description given for hit points is that the first half is representing scrapes, dodges, being worn down over time, etc…
The other half is representative of more physical damage, which are cuts, nicks, bruises, and the like.
Once you get to 0 hit points, you're actually seriously hit, and go down.

Why not just make it so that there are two trackers? One for stamina and one for health.
Stamina points would work somewhat like temporary hit points, going on top of health points.

If you're at 100%, and you get hit, your stamina would get reduces by the given amount.
If your stamina is depleted, you start losing health points when you get hit.

Stamina is something that you can replenish yourself by resting, and is fully restored after a good night of sleep.
Health is something that takes a while to regain, unless by magic. One point per level per night, or such?

I can see this being changeable from 50/50 to something like 25/75, or 75/25, or completely using either one or the other.

It's a little extra bookkeeping, but I think it might work.

I could see these Stamina points also being used for martial abilities, to spice up the fighter and his ilk.


Hm, I guess that'll be it for now.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (May 27, 2012)

I haven't run it yet (Sunday evening with my group) but after reading through everything, I'm not wild about healing full HP back after one night's rest. I really like the concept of rolling two dice for advantages and disadvantages. I would also like to see monster descriptions be complete self-contained, no needing to reference spells elsewhere. Other than those nitpicks, I'm liking what I see.


----------



## Whispers of Sorrow (May 27, 2012)

Kavon said:


> Economy:
> 
> Still a mess. Has this ever been anywhere close to realistic?
> Wasn't there talk of there being a silver standard some time ago?
> Using copper and silver pieces, with gold being something for higher levels seems to me like a step in the right direction.. The way it is now, you'll end up with ridiculous amounts of gold again.




That's pretty much my first impression in a nutshell, only with less rending of clothes and wearing of sackcloth.


----------



## jadrax (May 27, 2012)

The price list has been cut and paste from the 3rd edition SRD, so its presumably quite low on the priority list right now.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 27, 2012)

Pros thus far:

- Play style able to replicate both BECMI through 3E pretty well, with some 4E features
- Simpler stat blocks and spell descriptions
- Simple, useful save and skill mechanics; like the Ability-based system
- Great potential flavor from backgrounds and themes
- Flatter mechanics may extend the "sweet spot" -- static defense and attack with scaling damage and HP are a good choice
- Classes still feel distinct, and have different mechanics
- Action + move mechanic for combat is a nice simplification

Cons thus far:
- Not certain about some spell balance; work required
- Armor balance is broken; as a result the rogue potentially out-tanks the fighter -- need to make Medium a more relevant choice and give a slight net advantage to Heavy to rebalance
- Think save mechanics need to be in monster stat blocks to avoid repeat look-ups (easy change -- just add entries for non-zero stats, like STR(+3))
- Scaling of some factors needs work (rogue sneak attack +1d6/level?)
- Character/monster balance is obviously still a work in progress
- Don't like the death saves; would prefer just -1 per round to -CON for simplicity
- Dislike the "damage on a miss" mechanic -- still feels silly


----------

