D&DNext: Playtest Review

[JonSetanta]

Just give the Mage an Eldritch Blast and call it a Warlock. Boom. Done.

[malak]

It doesn't. They wrote up a version in the early months and dropped it like a hot potato. They popped up as levels 1-5 during the second and third versions of the playtest (still in August of 2012), and they were gone by the end of October. (the early Oct version of the playtest kept the same class doc as the late august version).

Thanks. I know - it was a rhetorical question. Just because that other guy insisted that the mechanics of the warlock were bad, despite the fact that currently, there are no mechanics for the warlock.

So yeah.

[Voss]

Just give the Mage an Eldritch Blast and call it a Warlock. Boom. Done.

That was actually their intent at one point- refer back to that mearls article about wizards becoming mages and then hanging other classes off the 'mage' chassis. But apparently they're doing something else now.

Thanks. I know - it was a rhetorical question. Just because that other guy insisted that the mechanics of the warlock were bad, despite the fact that currently, there are no mechanics for the warlock.

So yeah.

So... unreasonable optimism in the face of reasoned pessimism?

[JonSetanta]

So, yesterday in the wrap up of the "Murder in Baldur's Gate" adventure I noticed something when a new player was creating his Fighter before we began.

His AC was 21 at level 3. While this doesn't seem like cause for alarm, compared to my Mage's AC of 12 (even while I did what I could to boost defenses) it got worse than that; the Cleric's AC was 23.

My Mage did lapse into the negatives during a jailbreak attempt, surrounded by same-level guards where I couldn't get out into the "back row" behind the warriors for safety.
That AC difference made a hell of a lot of good in close combat.

Not a complaint but with Bounded Accuracy (or what I'm scrounging to understand of what that is) it made a huge difference.

[Voss]

I'm not surprised- it is actually the one glaring weakness of the mage, though it can be mitigated with a mandatory mage armor (AC 13 plus dex, which you max, obviously, which makes it AC16 with the point buy maximums). An 8 hour duration means that this is the spell you cast until bracers of armor start dropping. At level 2 you add in the enchanter school ability to force disadvantage on attackers, because there isn't much of a reason to take the other schools, ever.

In general, Level 1 characters are pretty solidly optimized around AC 18 minimum, (which puts level one monsters at a roughly 65% miss chance, and then you start coupling disadvantage at that stage), and weapon/shield is far superior for survivability than the minor damage boost a 2 handed weapon or two weapon style compensates for. 18 is actually achievable by most classes, since scale armor +2 dex and shield hits it nicely, as does chain and shield, (though scale and shield means barbarians ignore their class AC of 10+dex+con until they get a few stat increases); but this does leave druids, monks and mages pretty screwed at 16 max, and druids & monks are fairly screwed with no innate disadvantage forcing. Druids are also in a weird position because they can't have weapon, shield and spell focus thing simultaneously, and transforming into an animal actually makes their AC even worse.

The really sad thing is that fighter is fairly unoptimized. A fighter can walk into the game with default equipment (chainmail, shield and longsword) and hit AC 20. [Chain [16] +2 (shield) +1 (mountain dwarf) +1 (defense fighting style)]. Though personally I find protection (reaction to force disadvantage) is better than defense for fighting styles.

Not quite sure what yields a 23 AC for a level 3 cleric, unless the DM was stupid and handing out +1 platemail at level 3, and even then (with dwarf and shield), it caps at 22 unless some buff spells are in 'always cast before combat' mode.

Obviously, I think classes that can achieve AC 'Fuck You AND reroll' are innately better than the others. This notably includes paladins, fighters and clerics, with rangers and barbarians following but ultimately running into problems. That said, any class can eventually sacrifice an ability increase for 'Fuck You, I can have plate mail now,' though it obviously puts the character behind in stat increases. This is particularly important for barbarians, rangers and mages, since the barbarian doesn't want to wait to hit AC 20 at level 16 through stat increases to dex and con. Oddly enough, nothing stops a druid or monk from doing it either. Fuck tradition, they say, I just want to not get hit.

[JonSetanta]

The party Druid did fairly well in both combat (offensively) and in utility (flight, slipping through jail cell bars as a weasel)

My character for the next adventure starting on Saturday will be an elf Rogue.
I was impressed by elf advantage on Perception, and Rogue looks appealing in both skill use and combat...

[Voss]

The party Druid did fairly well in both combat (offensively) and in utility (flight, slipping through jail cell bars as a weasel)

The utility is good. Offensive ability in Next isn't all that hard- pretty much everyone hits the same level until multiple attacks kick in, with some burst damage from spellcasters. Defensively, they run behind the other spellcasters.

My character for the next adventure starting on Saturday will be an elf Rogue.
I was impressed by elf advantage on Perception, and Rogue looks appealing in both skill use and combat...

The rogue fucking breaks the skill system. Combat wise, I'm not impressed with it. Sneak attack is OK at low levels, but quickly falls off at higher levels- multiple attacks overwhelm sneak attack damage, and if the rogue is ever cut off from allies, it is completely fucked. Defensively, the rogue is shit, stuck with AC 16, until they get 500 gold to drop on dragon scale, andh no options to get over a base AC 17 until level 7 (and even that requires 5K to drop on top tier armor), and even then, they're stuck at 18. Evasion is also poor defensive mechanic when coupled with the smallest hp pool (half damage rather than disadvantage).

[JonSetanta]

My elf Rogue indeed has very high skill bonuses thanks to Expertise (+5 on 4 skills) so I maxed out the "thief" skills such as Stealth and Sleight of Hand.

I plan on hanging back, throwing daggers or shooting a bow, and if the opportunity presents itself to break away I'll go for a flank, but at least my AC is 17 with leather armor and a shield.

High Elves get 1 cantrip so I grabbed Prestidigitation, naturally.

I took the Thug background because, well, more skills.

These are my skills (those marked "E" have Expertise):
Acrobatics E
Athletics
Deception
Intimidation
Perception E
Sleight of Hand E
Stealth E

[TiaC]

I just came to the forum and opened a few threads in tabs to see what the last few hours had produced. Reading the tab titles left to right gave me "D&DNext: Playtest ... ... Is Still Bad". The forum software seems to have learned something from its inhabitants.

[Voss]

My elf Rogue indeed has very high skill bonuses thanks to Expertise (+5 on 4 skills) so I maxed out the "thief" skills such as Stealth and Sleight of Hand.

I plan on hanging back, throwing daggers or shooting a bow, and if the opportunity presents itself to break away I'll go for a flank, but at least my AC is 17 with leather armor and a shield.

A couple points: flank isn't actually a thing. The whole concept is gone.
Sneak attack works if you have advantage or 'another enemy of the target' is standing next to (5') of an enemy, and works on ranged or melee attacks, so there isn't any reason to go into melee at all.

shields are...wacky. There isn't any explicit reference to what shield proficiency does, but it is actually a thing (and rogues don't get it). From the chart in the Equipment doc, it is an armor type (and under armor proficiencies in the class entries), so non-proficiency should really net you the same negatives as non-proficiency in other armor types: disadvantage on Dex & Str attacks, saves and checks. But implicitly from the chart, shields are an armor type in the same way as light, medium and heavy armor. If they aren't the game divides by zero and fails, because they are otherwise undefined beyond 'requires one hand' and 'can't use more than one.'

Really, it has to do this, because for weapons and armor, avoiding disadvantage is actually the only thing proficiency does. (well, except for spellcasters- proficiency also lets them cast in whatever armor(s) they have proficiency with).

On a related tangent, there also isn't any reason to use a buckler at all, since it has no effects beyond providing a smaller AC bonus. On the other hand, the shield entry under armor descriptions may be describing the shield item rather than the shield type, which means we don't know if bucklers require a hand, or if they can stack. Presumably yes and no, respectively, but that is purely an assumption, since everything else under armor description is an item, and not a type. They just... left bucklers out except on the chart. Sigh.

Also, I have to amend my 'grabbing heavy armor proficiency' idea above. It doesn't work for monks or wizards, because of the restriction on heavy armor mastery. They actually have to nab a level in another class to get at least medium armor prof, though mages can grab a level in cleric and grab the life or war domain to just get heavy armor prof. Still a minor loss in spell progression, but not in DC progression.

[malak]

Being a Mountain Dwarf gives you Medium Armor Proficiency.

[spongeknight]

So everybody plays dwarfs now for that sweet armor proficiency? With bounded accuracy being a real concept in their game world dwarfs must be destroying everyone's shit in war, due to the fact that they're natural miners and blacksmiths and wear heavy armor whenever possible.

[Ferret]

So I asked Mearls on Twitter - we'll see a mechanical preview for Warlocks (and, although I did not ask specifically, I suspect Sorcerers) prior to the release. No time frame given, though.

[Ferret]

[oh hey I loved this post so much I made it twice]

[JonSetanta]

My Rogue can't use a shield?!?

I'd better correct my sheet before the event today!

[JonSetanta]

My Rogue can't use a shield?!?

I'd better correct my sheet before the event today!

[Voss]

My Rogue can't use a shield?!?

Well you can, but you suck at everything you can do while you wear it (except party face stuff). On the other hand, if you're just walking around and might be ambushed, you can have a +2 AC for nothing, and then you drop it when combat music starts.

@malak- point. So mountain dwarf for monks and wizards. Lets them start with a 17 AC with burning any sort of resources, and the point-buy set up lets anyone hit the 16 maximum in the primary stat without any issue.

[malak]

@malak- point. So mountain dwarf for monks and wizards. Lets them start with a 17 AC with burning any sort of resources, and the point-buy set up lets anyone hit the 16 maximum in the primary stat without any issue.

Yes, it's silly. Being a dwarf also gets you battleaxe + warhammer proficiency. And the way the system's set up, you might easily get a 14 in STR if you want that in addition to 16 INT.

That means you can use your racial weapons to attack with +3 and do 1d10+2 damage in melee. As a full wizard with proper, non-crippled spell casting.

[malak]

@malak- point. So mountain dwarf for monks and wizards. Lets them start with a 17 AC with burning any sort of resources, and the point-buy set up lets anyone hit the 16 maximum in the primary stat without any issue.

Yes, it's silly. Being a dwarf also gets you battleaxe + warhammer proficiency. And the way the system's set up, you might easily get a 14 in STR if you want that in addition to 16 INT.

That means you can use your racial weapons to attack with +3 and do 1d10+2 damage in melee. As a full wizard with proper, non-crippled spell casting.

[Voss]

@malak- point. So mountain dwarf for monks and wizards. Lets them start with a 17 AC with burning any sort of resources, and the point-buy set up lets anyone hit the 16 maximum in the primary stat without any issue.

Yes, it's silly. Being a dwarf also gets you battleaxe + warhammer proficiency. And the way the system's set up, you might easily get a 14 in STR if you want that in addition to 16 INT.

That means you can use your racial weapons to attack with +3 and do 1d10+2 damage in melee. As a full wizard with proper, non-crippled spell casting.

For a one-shot or a campaign that isn't likely to last, I can see doing that. Long term, however, the scaling on cantrips makes it unnecessary and the stat points are better spent elsewhere (dex and con, mostly). By 4th level, you'll be putting points into int rather than strength, and you start falling off the curve, and at 5th warrior types are getting a second attack.

But for an 'D&D encounters' adventure? Yeah, totally see rubbing people's noses in the way the races break down. Elf has a couple specific uses (particularly the never surprised rogue or bard), but humans, half-orcs and mountain dwarves top pretty much everything else.

[CCarter]

New L&L article on how in 3E adding base save bonuses was unnecessarily complicated and why advantage is awesome.

Design Failness Part I...

[phlapjackage]

This quote from Mearls says it all right here:
"An approach that attempts to put a minimum amount of effort, tracking, and work into an RPG"

[Seerow]

This quote from Mearls says it all right here:
"An approach that attempts to put a minimum amount of effort, tracking, and work into an RPG"

I preferred "Remove problems by removing rules whenever possible."

[JonSetanta]

So far with my second character and a new campaign set my DM now has to manage with 14 players in the previous session, although probably less in the next, and has no problem with that.
Hell, my high school group bloated to 12 at one time for AD&D so I'm used o that.
But two of our players were under 10...

Anyway my Rogue clung to the shadows near a town gate while the rest of the massive party took on a horde of yetis.
I threw some daggers from hiding, which is great because Advantage + Sneak Attack, and I plan to use my massive Expertise bonus (+9 to skills such as Sleight of Hand when you factor in Proficiency and DEX) to break RNG over my knee.

[Voss]

This quote from Mearls says it all right here:
"An approach that attempts to put a minimum amount of effort, tracking, and work into an RPG"

I preferred "Remove problems by removing rules whenever possible."

The real weirdness is that this is an actual design principle and it is true. But he's applying it poorly and far too broadly. The Dalek metaphor that he uses is quite appropriate: he's on a maniacal quest just to eliminate anything he perceives as complex. You don't solve problems by eliminating everything. You solve problem by applying it selectively- you can't eliminate the structure and meat of the game; you only want to eliminate the bloat.

In a nutshell: someone gave this fucker a design textbook, and he only read the chapter headings, and not the text.