D&D Next: Final Playtest Discussion

[Ziegander]

To me, this packet, more than any other packet, by far, has gotten me actually interested in playing the 5th edition of D&D. There are loads of changes from the last several packets, changes in the right directions, as well as straight up additions/addendums to the rules that also seem to be good additions.

That's not to say that there aren't issues I still have with the system, but, on the whole, I'd say that this collection of final public playtest documents seems to be a more playable, more polished product than the actual published launch of either 3rd or 4th edition (balance issues aside).

Things I love:
-- The game appears to run fluidly and coherently, certainly faster than 3e or 4e
-- Backgrounds offer characters a tangible variety in skill sets
-- Characters of all classes get something interesting and useful at every level
-- Martial classes get relevant class features at every level
-- The Rogue is actually pretty awesome from a mechanical standpoint
-- New rules for exploration roles and encounters that make "adventure time" more engaging
-- Balance actually doesn't seem too out of whack and doesn't resort to 4e-sameness to achieve this

Things that need work:
-- The social interaction rules (they aren't awful, but they aren't terribly engaging or useful either)
-- Multiclassing is a pain in the neck (but it is probably still better than core 3e or 4e multiclassing)
-- Lack of customizability (which presumably will come with modules, but... maybe not)
-- Ability Score Improvement//Feats (Honestly, just give the characters more, real class features and tie this advancement back to character level)

Things that need playtested in order to determine their worth
-- The proficiency system
-- The skill system for that matter
-- SPELLCASTING
-- In depth intra-class balance testing

Things I hate
-- The Expertise feature needs thrown out entirely

I would actually play this game. As is. Am I missing something? I haven't really noticed much rage over this final public playtest, but I also haven't been able to find much meaningful discussion about it. Have people just given up on it to the point that most discussion has broken down completely?

[TuggyNE]

Have people just given up on it to the point that most discussion has broken down completely?

Yes. It's gotten to the point where it's hard to keep track of whether something is actually in the playtest, what it used to be like, what its effects and implications and ramifications are, and its interactions with all the other somethings in the same manner. Expecting to have to re-read the rules set each time to get a fresh look is not, perhaps, out of line, but most people don't feel like doing that much work.

[KillianHawkeye]

"Final" playtest? So does this mean that 5E is close to being released soon?

[Fecar]

From what I read this will be the last public playtest before they go into focused internal playtesting for the purposes of balance.

The major ideas are in place, just need to settle on the fine details.

[Ziegander]

"Final" playtest? So does this mean that 5E is close to being released soon?


From what I read this will be the last public playtest before they go into focused internal playtesting for the purposes of balance.

The major ideas are in place, just need to settle on the fine details.

Correct.

So has anyone here looked it at very seriously yet? I want to run a playtest of it ASAP, in time to actually give them feedback on the game. I'd like to discuss it with people on here though as well.

[Scots Dragon]

I don't like it. It's making several mistakes that 4e made, for no really good reason.

I'm going to stick with Swords & Wizardry.

[Ziegander]

I don't like it. It's making several mistakes that 4e made, for no really good reason.

What mistakes for example?

[Kurald Galain]

I don't like it either. Instead of getting cool and flashy abilities, characters get tiny numerical bonuses as they level up, even as their capstone, and have to pretend that this is a big deal. Primary casters are the exception, of course.

Aside from that, I find the resolution mechanics entirely too random. Characters are never allowed to become actually good at anything; an trained/skilled character (except a rogue) is not noticeably better at anything than an untrained rookie.

The impression I get is that WOTC is so utterly afraid of adding unbalanced options, that the majority of character options are bland and boring.

[Ziegander]

I don't like it either. Instead of getting cool and flashy abilities, characters get tiny numerical bonuses as they level up, even as their capstone, and have to pretend that this is a big deal.

Yes, the Ability Score Bonus "feature" is pretty lame and could be moved to character level advancement, but otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Death-defying Rage? Holy Nimbus? Terrain Superiority? Ace in the Hole? All pretty flashy big deal abilities. Fighter and Monk's capstones aren't particularly flashy, but they are effective none-the-less.


Aside from that, I find the resolution mechanics entirely too random. Characters are never allowed to become actually good at anything; an trained/skilled character (except a rogue) is not noticeably better at anything than an untrained rookie.

This is something that will require a playtest, for me, to decide if I agree with you or not, but again, I stand by my statement that this version of D&D Next seems to be a more stable and enjoyable game than 3.5 or 4e were at Core launch.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, the Ability Score Bonus "feature" is pretty lame and could be moved to character level advancement, but otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Death-defying Rage? Holy Nimbus? Terrain Superiority? Ace in the Hole? All pretty flashy big deal abilities.
Come now. "Once per encounter, you may turn a miss into a hit" is about as non-flashy as it gets. Sure it's useful, but it's also extremely boring. "You gain advantage on <some roll>" is also very boring; and most higher-level abilities (other than spellcasting, of course) are like that. Becoming somewhat better at things you could already do is not flashy.

Oh, I also note that character customization is lower than ever (because e.g. the amount of feats you get throughout 20 levels is way lower than in 4E or PF, not to mention the fact that most feats are fairly lacklustre).

And in terms of systems design, the game contains mechanics that are different only for the sake of being different (e.g. to catch an arrow, you roll 1d10 instead of 1d20); this inconsistency is one of the most disliked parts of 2E.

Finally, the game is not stable, in that there is already a Diplomancy build that breaks the game at level 5.

[Tablesalt]

I haven't had a chance to actually play with it yet, but, at least for me, none of the new features (since the last packet) really look like they'd make it or break it for me.

I think that the proficiency system will really make calculations easier, especially now that Attack bonus, skills, and item proficiencies have all been folded into the same system. It does seem like it'll make it a bit harder to specialize your PC, but I do appreciate how it spreads out the bonuses. Higher-level characters feel more heroic than they did in 3.5, at least. It's much easier to build a viable generalized character.


Aside from that, I find the resolution mechanics entirely too random. Characters are never allowed to become actually good at anything; an trained/skilled character (except a rogue) is not noticeably better at anything than an untrained rookie.
I do feel that WotC has moved away from larger bonuses, but I see this as a good thing, in a way. While your sneaky ranger might not be able to reliably hide from untrained guards, keep in mind that PCs not optimized for Spot will have a pretty good chance to see a hiding monster. It cuts both ways, and I feel like the higher chance factor might be enjoyable.

While I like the concept of requiring ability scores for multiclass characters, I'm not sure how well it'll work out in play, but I have a feeling it'll be open to less abuse than 3.5's multiclass system.

Overall? I'm pumped for 5e.

[Ziegander]

Come now. "Once per encounter, you may turn a miss into a hit" is about as non-flashy as it gets. Sure it's useful, but it's also extremely boring. "You gain advantage on <some roll>" is also very boring; and most higher-level abilities (other than spellcasting, of course) are like that. Becoming somewhat better at things you could already do is not flashy.

The Ranger gets Advantage on basically every roll. Not "some" roll. I misread Ace in the Hole, slightly, thinking it turned a missed hit into a 20, but it does do that for saving throws, which is still pretty awesome. If it turned a miss into a crit, I would argue that that's pretty flashy. The others, yeah, they're really flashy abilities.


Oh, I also note that character customization is lower than ever (because e.g. the amount of feats you get throughout 20 levels is way lower than in 4E or PF, not to mention the fact that most feats are fairly lacklustre).

Which I mention as an issue, but is it meaningfully lower than core 3.5? I don't think so. In fact, given that you get some choice in what skills you're proficient with, I'd say that Next offers more customization.


And in terms of systems design, the game contains mechanics that are different only for the sake of being different (e.g. to catch an arrow, you roll 1d10 instead of 1d20); this inconsistency is one of the most disliked parts of 2E.

I personally don't mind that, but I could see it being an issue. I'd have to playtest things like that to see how I felt about them.


Finally, the game is not stable, in that there is already a Diplomancy build that breaks the game at level 5.

Valid point. Expertise does seem like a bad, kludgy mechanic, in the same way that the Lore +10 mechanic was a bad, kludgy mechanic. If they want to stay away from big bonuses, then giving a +5 to rolls at 1st level is a stupid idea, I agree.

It doesn't make the game less stable than 3.5 though. Diplomancy is just as large a problem there is it is here, only this isn't a finished, published game yet. Things like this can still change (and should!).

But I feel like you're nit-picking to find a few flaws in the system so that you can **** on it. I've hated every packet up until this one. This one still has issues, as I said in my original post, but it looks a lot better than the Core 3.5 PHB does, to me anyway.

[Joe the Rat]

It's an interesting balancing act - making those who are "proficient" better than those who are not, without making the the non-proficient totally useless (or to allow the proficient challenged by something, without making it impossible for the non-proficient). Is +30% (ignoring attributes and dice tweaking class features) enough of a gain to be distinctive? Arguably, this is what the stat boost is supposed to be doing: you are effectively getting +1 to all your X-based rolls, proficient or not.

Something I find interesting is that they are shifting bonus inflation into the probability game. Fighters don't get huge to-hit bonuses, they get more at-bats: More tries improves your chances of making a hit, and better damage through multiple hits. And then there's the whole Advantage/Disadvantage element to mess with things.

[Ziegander]

Something I find interesting is that they are shifting bonus inflation into the probability game. Fighters don't get huge to-hit bonuses, they get more at-bats: More tries improves your chances of making a hit, and better damage through multiple hits. And then there's the whole Advantage/Disadvantage element to mess with things.

Well, more "at-bats" is also part and parcel of what the Advantage mechanic is supposed to do for players. The math is already there to show that, depending on your base modifiers, Advantage/Disadvantage accounts for, basically somewhere between +/-2 and +/-5. Only without actually improving your base modifiers.

So, instead of Expertise granting a +5 bonus, they could just say that Character X always has Advantage on Y proficiencies and be done with it. Perhaps they could even include language that explicity states that such a character can never have Disadvantage on those proficiencies. I don't know. I would need to playtest it. But something like this would almost certainly be a better idea than a flat +5 bonus.

[Kurald Galain]

It's an interesting balancing act - making those who are "proficient" better than those who are not, without making the the non-proficient totally useless (or to allow the proficient challenged by something, without making it impossible for the non-proficient). Is +30% (ignoring attributes and dice tweaking class features) enough of a gain to be distinctive?
Yes, but that only applies to rogues and bards. For other characters, it's pretty much irrelevant which skills they're trained in.


Arguably, this is what the stat boost is supposed to be doing: you are effectively getting +1 to all your X-based rolls, proficient or not.
Yes, but a problem is that you'll hit the cap really fast, and at that point it stops working.

[Eldan]

Why shouldn't some things be impossible to the non-proficient?

Seriously, I could probably try for hours and I couldn't pick a modern lock, even if I knew what tools to use. Similarly, even if I try twenty times, I can't write a symphony or swim across the English channel.

[Kurald Galain]

Why shouldn't some things be impossible to the non-proficient?
I think it's mostly because bad adventure writers (multiple of which are employed by WOTC) write linear railroad adventures where at some point the only way to proceed is to make a lockpick check or a swim check or whatever. So if the adventure contains a locked door and nobody in the party is trained in thievery and the DM is inflexible, then the adventure ends right there.

Now it strikes me that the better approach here would be to teach DMs not to do that. But instead, WOTC has opted to make skill checks impossible to fail at, by setting the DCs low and allowing infinite retries. 4E already does that to some extent, 5E takes it a few steps further.

This is admittedly a matter of taste. But personally I prefer systems where a character can actually become good at some task, to the point where he can reliably do something that a random rookie cannot.

[tulebast]

Disclaimer: I've not bothered with any of the previous playtest materials, so I have no insight into the evolution of the rules through the various playtest cycles. I also just downloaded the materials this afternoon and have been giving them a good once over and these are merely my first impressions without having the benefit of running or playing under the rules.

First up: One of the few things I believe they did right in 4e was to make 1st level characters less squishy. Except for the brief time that I was in the RPGA and they forced everyone to, I have never played a 1st or 2nd level character in a previous edition because no experienced players in a group wanted to start characters that low and die to a housecat encounter (Note: this actually happened in a 2e game I was in) or to a lucky orc v3+ great axe crit (which, according to my long lost RPGA buddies was the #1 1st and 2nd level character killer in RPGA modules--I remember fondly my very first v3 module I played at a convention and one of our players died five minutes into a 4 hour module during the first round of combat from an orc hit). Here I see we are back to 1st level characters having 1 dice worth of hit points, which results in a skewed power curve in the lower levels. Which means that should this remain, any Next games I participate in will likely start at 3rd level or higher. At least the Mage got a hit die upgrade.

Second up: Multiclassing goes back to v3+, driving a final well-deserved death spike into the travesty that was 4e multiclassing (or the lack thereof). Which means that prestige classes are probably viable in this system, too. I like the way in which multiclass spellcasters are actually more viable here, but it still looks like melee/spellcaster combinations are embarrassing (though possibly not as bad a 3.5, I'll have to cogitate on those rules more). However, see 4th up below.

Third up: I like the backgrounds idea. Providing flavor and mechanics to good character development is always a win, imho.

Forth up: Not sure what to make of the "ability upgrade or take a feat" options that litter class abilities. In 3.5, you got one feat every 3 levels and stat increases every 4 levels, so a basic character would expect to receive 7 feats (1 at first level, 6 running up to level 18) and +5 stat points (running up to level 20), plus any additional ones from class. Here, the Barbarian, Cleric, Mage, Monk and Paladin character can have 5 feats or +10 stat increases as part of his/her normal class leveling. Bards, Druids and Rangers can expect 4 feats/+8 stat increases. Rogues expect 6/+12 and fighters can expect 7/+14. Multiclass characters should expect delayed and potentially less feats/stat increases. Now I suppose the feats are (arguably) a little beefier here, but I agree with a previous poster that this is potentially cutting down on the opportunity to customize characters.

Fifth up: I am not sure what to think of the spellcasting power progression. I'd have to play and/or run the game to get a clearer picture, but the spellcasting classes seem slightly hamstrung in terms of spells available at higher levels (which from a play balance perspective may be a good thing as they were usually way overpowered in 3.5). But then again, like feats the spells seem to be a little beefier, too.

Sixth up: I have hope that psionics will integrate well into these rules. I must say that the psionics travesty in 4e was approximately 40% of why I never converted my game over.

Finally: I absolutely hate the auto-crit on a 20 mechanic. I am a very mathematically minded person and the concept always ran afoul, and they've made it worse, imho, by increasing the damage from an auto-crit beyond what 4e provided (max damage to max damage plus an extra die). This means that lower level characters are even more vulnerable to insta-death from that orc greataxe crit (say hello to 12+str+1d12 damage you first level mage you...).

Anyway, those were my first impressions. Take from they what you will.

[Joe the Rat]

Finally: I absolutely hate the auto-crit on a 20 mechanic. I am a very mathematically minded person and the concept always ran afoul, and they've made it worse, imho, by increasing the damage from an auto-crit beyond what 4e provided (max damage to max damage plus an extra die). This means that lower level characters are even more vulnerable to insta-death from that orc greataxe crit (say hello to 12+str+1d12 damage you first level mage you...).

Oh, it's better than that. You're swinging away at something that you'd only hit on a 20: If it hits, it crits. One of the options we'd discussed on another OGL-based game had come up with is that a 20 auto-hits. If you would have hit anyway (still beat the AC after bonuses/penalties), then you get a critical. In other words, the fact that your blow connected was your lucky strike.
Or y'know, roll to confirm. Personally, I'm happy without the confirmation process, if the result isn't too ridiculous.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Finally: I absolutely hate the auto-crit on a 20 mechanic. I am a very mathematically minded person and the concept always ran afoul, and they've made it worse, imho, by increasing the damage from an auto-crit beyond what 4e provided (max damage to max damage plus an extra die). This means that lower level characters are even more vulnerable to insta-death from that orc greataxe crit (say hello to 12+str+1d12 damage you first level mage you...).
I don't think I've ever played with a group that's used roll-to-confirm. Sucks all the fun out of a natural 20.

Also, I think I read somewhere that levels 1 and 2 are supposed to be "apprentice" levels, so the "real" game starts at 3.

[bst1]

Oh, I also note that character customization is lower than ever (because e.g. the amount of feats you get throughout 20 levels is way lower than in 4E or PF, not to mention the fact that most feats are fairly lacklustre).

What? 5e's feats are huge. It's a shift in philosophy to quality over quantity; virtually any 5e feat would be ridiculously overpowered in 3.5/PF/4e. I would have appreciated a slightly more generous and more standardized feat progression, but overall I think the basic "big package" model for feats is a fantastic idea. I like it much, much better than picking tiny bonuses every other level.

[Tablesalt]

Also, I think I read somewhere that levels 1 and 2 are supposed to be "apprentice" levels, so the "real" game starts at 3.

Even if WotC hasn't explicitly stated this, it seems that the majority of the subclasses kick in at level 3. It seems like levels 1-3 spread the choices out, so that new players can get a grip on the game before having to make their character-defining choice. It would be a pretty simple matter to just start at level 3, if you were so inclined.

[Kurald Galain]

What? 5e's feats are huge. It's a shift in philosophy to quality over quantity; virtually any 5e feat would be ridiculously overpowered in 3.5/PF/4e.

Really now. Let's take a look, then.

Picking some feats at random, we get "Healer": you can now perform first aid on creatures, which most systems let you do without a feat. "Arcane Initiate": you can use a first-level spell once per day; that's a far cry from "overpowered", and in fact weaker than the direct equivalent 4E feat. "Shield Master": you can now shield bash, which again most systems let you do without a feat, and you gain a minor bonus to reflex saves, which again is weaker than the equivalent feats in 3E and 4E. "Great Weapon Master", a combination of 3E's cleave and power attack, but substantially weaker than either.

So no, your statement does not hold up to scrutiny. There's nothing "ridiculous" or "overpowered" about 5E feats, they tend to be weaker than the average 3E and 4E feat (although both of those games have "dud" feats as well), and I'm not impressed by their quality overall.

[Joe the Rat]

Why shouldn't some things be impossible to the non-proficient?

Seriously, I could probably try for hours and I couldn't pick a modern lock, even if I knew what tools to use. Similarly, even if I try twenty times, I can't write a symphony or swim across the English channel.Mmm... before they switched to the generic proficiency bonus, there were things that were 'yes or no' proficiencies. Weapons attack with disadvantage if you are not proficient, and you can't cast in armor if you're not proficient with it. If Tool Proficiency was one of those do/cannot do or do/do-at-disadvantage set-ups, it would capture this better.

Or am I misremembering the current system? I don't have the packet on me.


What? 5e's feats are huge. It's a shift in philosophy to quality over quantity; virtually any 5e feat would be ridiculously overpowered in 3.5/PF/4e. I would have appreciated a slightly more generous and more standardized feat progression, but overall I think the basic "big package" model for feats is a fantastic idea. I like it much, much better than picking tiny bonuses every other level. Heh, I'm glad to see they finally figured out Arcane Archer is worth a Feat, not an entire class level.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes. It's gotten to the point where it's hard to keep track of whether something is actually in the playtest, what it used to be like, what its effects and implications and ramifications are, and its interactions with all the other somethings in the same manner. Expecting to have to re-read the rules set each time to get a fresh look is not, perhaps, out of line, but most people don't feel like doing that much work.

This. I've had every packet, run many tests, and now, I'm mostly frigging lost between what each version has had, the misinterpreted stuff that we fixed(or was changed), etc. It's all just fuzzy. At this point, I think I'm mostly going to ignore it until it releases, and judge it based on that.

[bst1]

Really now. Let's take a look, then.

Picking some feats at random, we get "Healer": you can now perform first aid on creatures, which most systems let you do without a feat. "Arcane Initiate": you can use a first-level spell once per day; that's a far cry from "overpowered", and in fact weaker than the direct equivalent 4E feat. "Shield Master": you can now shield bash, which again most systems let you do without a feat, and you gain a minor bonus to reflex saves, which again is weaker than the equivalent feats in 3E and 4E. "Great Weapon Master", a combination of 3E's cleave and power attack, but substantially weaker than either.

So no, your statement does not hold up to scrutiny. There's nothing "ridiculous" or "overpowered" about 5E feats, they tend to be weaker than the average 3E and 4E feat (although both of those games have "dud" feats as well), and I'm not impressed by their quality overall.

"Most systems" might let you recover health, but those systems do not include either 3e or 4e, both of which are balanced around limited healing resources. Healer as written breaks 3.5 at low levels and is extremely handy throughout most of the level curve, and it breaks 4e wide open.

At a glance Shield Master is pretty weak, but is still equivalent to several 3E and 4E feats combined. Great Weapon Master gives you literally everything 3E Cleave does, and is as effective (if less flexible) as Power Attack. The spellcasting feats are admittedly a bit weak, but they're still something you simply cannot get for a feat in 3E, and considering how crazy they could get I can't fault WotC for playing it safe.

Elsewhere, you get a feat that's better than Improved Initiative, which was already a decent feat. You get epic feats like DR and attribute increases. Even the dud 5E feats are equivalent to several times their corresponding dud 3E/4E feats.

[Draz74]

"Most systems" might let you recover health, but those systems do not include either 3e or 4e, both of which are balanced around limited healing resources. Healer as written breaks 3.5 at low levels and is extremely handy throughout most of the level curve, and it breaks 4e wide open.

At a glance Shield Master is pretty weak, but is still equivalent to several 3E and 4E feats combined. Great Weapon Master gives you literally everything 3E Cleave does, and is as effective (if less flexible) as Power Attack. The spellcasting feats are admittedly a bit weak, but they're still something you simply cannot get for a feat in 3E, and considering how crazy they could get I can't fault WotC for playing it safe.

Elsewhere, you get a feat that's better than Improved Initiative, which was already a decent feat. You get epic feats like DR and attribute increases. Even the dud 5E feats are equivalent to several times their corresponding dud 3E/4E feats.

To sum up: 5e feats are a LOT better than the plentiful weak feats in 3e, but somewhat worse than the good feats in 3e.

[Tyndmyr]

Elsewhere, you get a feat that's better than Improved Initiative, which was already a decent feat. You get epic feats like DR and attribute increases. Even the dud 5E feats are equivalent to several times their corresponding dud 3E/4E feats.

I feel like I must say that while epic feats for both of those exist in 3.5, they were the sucky epic feats. More importantly, you can get those in 3.5 without being epic at all, though slightly more knowledge/conditional what not is required.

Let's break 'em down in more detail.

Alert. Fantastic. Mostly for the "can't be surprised". The init bonus is awesome, but init pumping is a thing in 3.5...not being surprised is particularly nice, and not usually available early on in 3.5. The proficiency is mostly irrelevant.

Arcane Archer. It's good they realized this wasn't really a PrC worthy thing. Given that it's value is similar to being able to use a single spell storing arrow at once...it's not unreasonable.

Archery Master. Good, has options...none of which are particularly unique, Im afraid. The flurry of shots option is a hard -5 to everything, and thus, will very rarely be a better choice than just shooting. Ignoring cover is kind of nice, but in 3.5, cover wasn't that big of a deal. A little extra AC? Meh. Long range? Meh, in 3.5, range increments didn't come up much for most weapons, and a -2 wasn't a big deal in any case. Actual archers didn't usually care about range. Proficiency...seriously, not important. Anyone into archery is already proficient with their bow.

Athelete. This is like the boring skill feats that were mostly ignored in 3.5. I suppose the single stat bump makes it technically different, but it is still pretty uninteresting.

Charger...so, it's like Powerful Charge or summat, a very mediocre 3.5 feat. Whatever. Pushing didn't really require a feat back in the day....

Dual wielder. Kind of a mish mash. Penalties appear to not exist. Being proficient with martial light weapons isn't a big deal. So, it's a +1 AC bonus. Pretty sure that existed in 3.5, and I'm also pretty sure I don't care about it.

Fencing Master. Second ability is kind of cool, and is both fluffy and potentially useful. The added attack option, sadly, is also weak. Yeah, I get that statistically, getting advantage is kind of like +5 when the TN is sort of in the middle of the range...but the actual cap hasn't changed. This is not true for flat bonuses or penalties. Thus, the actual benefit may be less than this. A -5 to all attacks kind of sucks.

Great wpn again has one good ability. It basically stole cleave from pathfinder. There's an odd, meh, power attack like ability, but I must say that the static -5s and proficiencies are still unimpressive.

Healer. Handy.

Heavy Armor Mastery. The only relevant bit is the DR. That existed in 3.5 too. Roll With It would be my favorite source, but it was far from the only one.

Loremaster. Ugh, one of these for each stat, each as boring as the last. Got it.

Lucky. Yup, ripped off luck feats, with less overall power. Meh.

Arcane/Divine Initiate. Yeah, these are also pretty much copies from 3.5. Mildly interesting, but not actually new....

Magic Adept. Well, they've formalized some minor shenanigans and optimization. Doesn't bother me, but again, not new.

Mobile. Speed increases are terrible. The ability seems vaguely interesting, but it's really just another variant on Mobility, which sucked.

Mounted Combatant. This is pretty terrible compared to charger anything from 3.5.

Ok, I'm bored with these, but you see the trend. It's just 3.5 feats boiled down, really.

[eepop]

I think I conceptually like the idea of the fewer more powerful feats. I just hope in the released version, we actually get some feats that can compare to two ability score points.

Overall, I think the final packet was a step up from a lot of other ones we've seen. Kind of think this is the BASELINE they should be working from though, not the end of the line.

[Scow2]

I feel like I must say that while epic feats for both of those exist in 3.5, they were the sucky epic feats. More importantly, you can get those in 3.5 without being epic at all, though slightly more knowledge/conditional what not is required.

Let's break 'em down in more detail.

Alert. Fantastic. Mostly for the "can't be surprised". The init bonus is awesome, but init pumping is a thing in 3.5...not being surprised is particularly nice, and not usually available early on in 3.5. The proficiency is mostly irrelevant.

Arcane Archer. It's good they realized this wasn't really a PrC worthy thing. Given that it's value is similar to being able to use a single spell storing arrow at once...it's not unreasonable.

Archery Master. Good, has options...none of which are particularly unique, Im afraid. The flurry of shots option is a hard -5 to everything, and thus, will very rarely be a better choice than just shooting. Ignoring cover is kind of nice, but in 3.5, cover wasn't that big of a deal. A little extra AC? Meh. Long range? Meh, in 3.5, range increments didn't come up much for most weapons, and a -2 wasn't a big deal in any case. Actual archers didn't usually care about range. Proficiency...seriously, not important. Anyone into archery is already proficient with their bow.

Athelete. This is like the boring skill feats that were mostly ignored in 3.5. I suppose the single stat bump makes it technically different, but it is still pretty uninteresting.

Charger...so, it's like Powerful Charge or summat, a very mediocre 3.5 feat. Whatever. Pushing didn't really require a feat back in the day....

Dual wielder. Kind of a mish mash. Penalties appear to not exist. Being proficient with martial light weapons isn't a big deal. So, it's a +1 AC bonus. Pretty sure that existed in 3.5, and I'm also pretty sure I don't care about it.

Fencing Master. Second ability is kind of cool, and is both fluffy and potentially useful. The added attack option, sadly, is also weak. Yeah, I get that statistically, getting advantage is kind of like +5 when the TN is sort of in the middle of the range...but the actual cap hasn't changed. This is not true for flat bonuses or penalties. Thus, the actual benefit may be less than this. A -5 to all attacks kind of sucks.

Great wpn again has one good ability. It basically stole cleave from pathfinder. There's an odd, meh, power attack like ability, but I must say that the static -5s and proficiencies are still unimpressive.

Healer. Handy.

Heavy Armor Mastery. The only relevant bit is the DR. That existed in 3.5 too. Roll With It would be my favorite source, but it was far from the only one.

Loremaster. Ugh, one of these for each stat, each as boring as the last. Got it.

Lucky. Yup, ripped off luck feats, with less overall power. Meh.

Arcane/Divine Initiate. Yeah, these are also pretty much copies from 3.5. Mildly interesting, but not actually new....

Magic Adept. Well, they've formalized some minor shenanigans and optimization. Doesn't bother me, but again, not new.

Mobile. Speed increases are terrible. The ability seems vaguely interesting, but it's really just another variant on Mobility, which sucked.

Mounted Combatant. This is pretty terrible compared to charger anything from 3.5.

Ok, I'm bored with these, but you see the trend. It's just 3.5 feats boiled down, really.
I'd say the Magic Adept/Initiate feats are underpowered (I'd have preferred the feats to be able to grant level 8 or 9 spells at max level... wording like "You may select a spell of a level equal to half your character level, and cast it once per day" instead of make it a mess of multiple feats.

If all these feats were added to 3.5 with their current wording, they'd be terrible. However, they synergize extremely well with the mechanics. Cover is MUCH more potent than a piddly +2 in D&D Next. "Archery Master" turns :haley: into a deadly, long-range sniper, instead of having to hope for her enemies to get within 'walk up and hit me' range before being able to apply precision damage. She can also apply it through cover. D&D Next is more about the holistic approach to the dungeon than a 50'x50' combat arena. Advantage/disadvantage pushes the distribution to the ends of the RNG, but still gravitate toward the center of a person's competence, instead of giving them suddenly-godlike competence or abject incompetence.

Mobile is 3.5's Spring Attack, Bounding Assault, and Rapid Blitz all in one - Anyone can move and attack, but AoOs generally dissuade that. You can be a spinning Dual-Wielding Drow Ranger dancing across the battlefield with it, or a nuisance with a polearm. The +10 feet movement is a 25-50% increase in land speed. To throw in Mobility, it would probably want to make all other Opportunity Attacks be made at disadvantage.


I really wish D&D Next allowed characters to start with a feat at first level.

[Ziegander]

Kind of think this is the BASELINE they should be working from though, not the end of the line.

And in many ways it is. Mearls is on record stating that after this test they will again rework things with respect to the final feedback and moreover add a lot of additional content, such as more subclasses and a few optional modules, before rolling out the published core rulesbook (at least as far as I could tell).

[Person_Man]

I don't like it either. Instead of getting cool and flashy abilities, characters get tiny numerical bonuses as they level up, even as their capstone, and have to pretend that this is a big deal. Primary casters are the exception, of course.

This is my biggest complaint with 4E and 5E. Boring, repetitive, "small" abilities. There are cool and interesting things, but they're buried amidst a mass of garbage, and you often have to take multiple levels of "meh" to get 1 cool thing.

You could just take the 3.5 PHB, Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, and Spell Compendium, and put together a set of core rules with a ton of "big" options. With literally hundreds of thousands of pages of work from previous editions to draw from, there is absolutely no excuse for any class to get a filler or boring ability.



Why shouldn't some things be impossible to the non-proficient?

Seriously, I could probably try for hours and I couldn't pick a modern lock, even if I knew what tools to use. Similarly, even if I try twenty times, I can't write a symphony or swim across the English channel.

D&D is a game, not a life simulator. Games are generally designed to be fun. It's generally more fun to have some reasonable chance of success and some meaningful chance of failure for every action that a hero could reasonably take.

This is particularly important for new players, who just want to "do stuff" without worrying about systems mastery.

[Kurald Galain]

It's generally more fun to have some reasonable chance of success and some meaningful chance of failure for every action that a hero could reasonably take.
I don't see how this is "generally" true or "particularly important for new players". In fact, in most popular RPGs it is explicitly not the case that any character can succeed at anything, so evidently this is not a prerequisite for the game being "fun".

Rather, this is a chocolate-vs-strawberry issue. WOTC has made a clear choice to allow only one of the flavors, and predictably this causes dissatisfaction among the fans of the other flavor.

[Scow2]

I don't see how this is "generally" true or "particularly important for new players". In fact, in most popular RPGs it is explicitly not the case that any character can succeed at anything, so evidently this is not a prerequisite for the game being "fun".

Rather, this is a chocolate-vs-strawberry issue. WOTC has made a clear choice to allow only one of the flavors, and predictably this causes dissatisfaction among the fans of the other flavor.
Do you pay any attention to the Player Shenanigan threads on this board? Having that kind of craziness be codified as possible keeps D&D as D&D. Right now, my biggest complaint with 3.X is the sheer number of times the system says "No, you can't do X/Y without a feat/+Arbitrarily Large Skill point optimization."

[Envyus]

I don't see how this is "generally" true or "particularly important for new players". In fact, in most popular RPGs it is explicitly not the case that any character can succeed at anything, so evidently this is not a prerequisite for the game being "fun".

Rather, this is a chocolate-vs-strawberry issue. WOTC has made a clear choice to allow only one of the flavors, and predictably this causes dissatisfaction among the fans of the other flavor.

I don't even understand your complaint about this anymore. You don't like that a n Orc has a chance of hurting a level 20 character or something like that I think.

But now you're just talking about nothing.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't even understand your complaint about this anymore.

Just read the last three or four posts of the thread. Person_man claims that for a game to be fun, every character has to have a reasonable chance of success at everything. I claim that this is not the case, and point to the (many) games on the marketplace that do not use this approach.

[Sith_Happens]

Just read the last three or four posts of the thread. Person_man claims that for a game to be fun, every character has to have a reasonable chance of success at everything. I claim that this is not the case, and point to the (many) games on the marketplace that do not use this approach.

I suspect part of the issue is that your definitions of "reasonable" are different.

[Kurald Galain]

I suspect part of the issue is that your definitions of "reasonable" are different.

No, not really. Some people believe there are tasks that a character should automatically fail at if he's not trained (because this makes training more relevant and meaningful) and other people believe that this should never happen (because it's not fair). That's why it's a chocolocate-vs-strawberry issue.

[tommhans]

I like next waay better than 4e, played next since december and i feel it is going in the right direction with the latest package, lots of cool class feats that really helps, alteast as a ranger i get to use these a lot.

The main feats can be cool, but i agree seems like 3e has more powerful feats, but combine those with class feats it can easily be similar.

The way the system works its a hell of a lot easier to start than 4e,easier to keep track on the throws(dont have to check skill list for like every damn new check)

it also feel like the encounters goes a lot faster, allthough wiz in next is more complicated than wiz in 4e(so many more spells to keep track of)