I have D&D Next beta access

[felipepepe]

I'm perfectly OK with a "heroic" fighter being able to survive reentry or take 100 swords to the face.

Or the other side, killing a 5 HP Goblin by hitting his feet 5 times for 1 HP...

 

[deuxhero]

I thought "targeted shots" and such was represented by precision damage?

 

[Grunker]

sup bros i like 3.5 lol

Anyway, congrats J1M and everyone else who got in! They didn't pick many for this round according to Mearls. I wasn't picked in the "random draft" but I got in on accord of my good looks anyway.

I will be doing playtests every odd monday. Expect some Codex content

 

[waywardOne]

A short sword sucks for slashing; no weight, no depth. Unless your target is a bare neck.

 

[deuxhero]

Which would be fine in a system that didn't have much smaller slashing weapons be effective.

Plus the main benefit (outside of creatures resistant to piercing but not slashing, which I draw I blank on) is to cut the inside of stomachs (swallow whole), ovegrown plants (entangle), ropes and other such targets.

 

[CappenVarra]

deuxhero:

No such luck, I guess. And yes, it makes sense to make a short sword a slashing/piercing weapon, but hey - they don't even have a knife-type weapon (1d4 slashing). Perhaps this should be included in playtest feedback by someone who's officially in?

Regarding the HP thing, it's one of the most commonly voiced complaints about D&D, so I guess they felt the need to address it (this edition is supposed to be all about diplomatic compromises that bring the warring tribes of edition champions back to playing together, after all). And the explanation works fine - it's just that the logic doesn't propagate to other necessary parts (like the healing spells). A matter of internal consistency, unaffected by realism-worship.

Otherwise, the playtest docs could be summed up as: 3rd ed lite + minor 4th ed additions + minor cosmetic throwbacks to older stuff. But I still haven't gone over them in depth...

 

[Jaesun]

Do weapons still have a vs Larger Creatures damage? Like 2nd ED Longsword 1-8 damage (man sized creatures), 1-12 (large creatures)?

 

[CappenVarra]

Do weapons still have a vs Larger Creatures damage? Like 2nd ED Longsword 1-8 damage (man sized creatures), 1-12 (large creatures)?

Didn't see a mention of that anywhere... But keep in mind that these are *very* trimmed down rules for playtesting, around 40ish pages for player and DM notes in total.

 

[Jaesun]

Do weapons still have a vs Larger Creatures damage? Like 2nd ED Longsword 1-8 damage (man sized creatures), 1-12 (large creatures)?

Didn't see a mention of that anywhere... But keep in mind that these are *very* trimmed down rules for playtesting, around 40ish pages for player and DM notes in total.

Ahhh yes. Didn't think about that. Thanks.

 

[Father Walker]

deuxheroOtherwise, the playtest docs could be summed up as: 3rd ed lite + minor 4th ed additions + minor cosmetic throwbacks to older stuff. But I still haven't gone over them in depth...

Very lite. Monster writeups feel as if taken from 1st Edition. Character sheets are also pretty thin when compared to previous editions. I don't know, this playtest file seems more like an alternate sequel to 2E.

 

[Havoc]

Wait... the staff is now 1d8? o_O

 

[CappenVarra]

deuxheroOtherwise, the playtest docs could be summed up as: 3rd ed lite + minor 4th ed additions + minor cosmetic throwbacks to older stuff. But I still haven't gone over them in depth...

Very lite. Monster writeups feel as if taken from 1st Edition. Character sheets are also pretty thin when compared to previous editions. I don't know, this playtest file seems more like an alternate sequel to 2E.

Yeah, that's not a bad way to put it either, I guess. It has the same systematic approach that 3E took (that's why I compared them), as opposed to the more "messy" style of 2E. So let's settle at calling it alter-3E-lite

Some more random points of interest:

- The Reaper feat from the sample fighter: "When you miss with an attack, you still deal damage equal to the ability score modifier of the ability you used to make the attack." Well, that certainly makes fighters much more reliable at dealing damage, which sure offsets the increased starting hit points. 1st level characters often miss a lot, and this seems to take care of that "you and your opponent spend 30 rounds swinging at each other, missing; the first one to land a solid hit wins" feeling. And it balances the Wizard's magic missles at will, I guess. So lvl1 chars are already quite adept at handling their roles, which is closer to 4th ed than older ones.

- A character can only take one long rest per 24 hours. Since long rests are required for healing and spell memorization, this could be interesting...

 

[Grunker]

Fighters getting active choices in combat seems like 1E to you? To each his own.

Anyway, I suspect the sheets are much more bare-bones than the final result will be. The few active options most classes seem to have seem to within the limited frame of pre-gen characters. Also remember they've said it's supposed to be modular (i.e. as much or little complexity as the play-group prefers). We don't know precisely what this means, just something to consider.

 

[CappenVarra]

Wait... the staff is now 1d8? o_O

Yeah, Blunt lands is strange. Clubs, Hammers and Maces are 1d6, so I guess the staff gets more because it's 2H-only. Warhammer and Flail 1d8, Morningstar 1d10 (hybrid blunt/piercing) but 2H only, Maul 1d12, Sling 1d6. So Morningstars can't be 1H, and a Sling shot does as much damage as a Hammer? Hmph.

 

[Havoc]

A sling does more damage than a fucking dagger?

 

[Jaesun]

Wait... the staff is now 1d8? o_O

Yeah, Blunt lands is strange. Clubs, Hammers and Maces are 1d6, so I guess the staff gets more because it's 2H-only. Warhammer and Flail 1d8, Morningstar 1d10 (hybrid blunt/piercing) but 2H only, Maul 1d12, Sling 1d6. So Morningstars can't be 1H, and a Sling shot does as much damage as a Hammer? Hmph.

Unless there are other modifiers to weapons, this does seem odd. I get the whole slash/blunt thing (like for skeletons). Maybe at this point they are just dialing in some stuff first?

It almost seems they want to make all weapons universal, and just use what weapon you prefer.

 

[Father Walker]

I never got this polyhedral damage dice thing to be honest. OD&D's d6 for all weapons is pretty solid, if not a bit too simple mechanic. I also liked WFRP 1st Edition take on damage, with all weapons dealing d6 damage with +/- modifiers depending on the weapon.

 

[Grunker]

As I've stated many times I support a single die type for all roles, but in D&D the different dice are used mainly for kool faktor I think. Which is k 'cause it's D&D.

 

[deuxhero]

No such luck, I guess. And yes, it makes sense to make a short sword a slashing/piercing weapon, but hey - they don't even have a knife-type weapon (1d4 slashing). Perhaps this should be included in playtest feedback by someone who's officially in?

I thought prices were meant to be SP based?

- A character can only take one long rest per 24 hours. Since long rests are required for healing and spell memorization, this could be interesting...

This was in 3e, but I think it was hidden around.

edit: There's an item in the MIC that contains such text, but don't see anything in core.

A sling does more damage than a fucking dagger?

Which makes a lot of sense. It throws a tiny (meaning less energy is sent to the target and not "wasted") dense heavy metal (lead) projectile (notice it is called a "bullet") at speeds around 60 MPH. Anyone who actually cares about that kind of thing has always thought slings should be martial weapons and do damage appropriate for such due to level of training needed fitting that category as well. I wouldn't really mind seeing it changed.

 

[CappenVarra]

Wait... the staff is now 1d8? o_O

Yeah, Blunt lands is strange. Clubs, Hammers and Maces are 1d6, so I guess the staff gets more because it's 2H-only. Warhammer and Flail 1d8, Morningstar 1d10 (hybrid blunt/piercing) but 2H only, Maul 1d12, Sling 1d6. So Morningstars can't be 1H, and a Sling shot does as much damage as a Hammer? Hmph.

Unless there are other modifiers to weapons, this does seem odd. I get the whole slash/blunt thing (like for skeletons). Maybe at this point they are just dialing in some stuff first?

It almost seems they want to make all weapons universal, and just use what weapon you prefer.

Well, the armor table is also all sorts of wonky - light armor seems clearly superior for anything above +2 dex bonus compared to medium and heavy armor. So, let's go with the assumption they just didn't put much thought into the equipment tables (but couldn't release the playtest without some kind of equipment list), and they'll handle that part properly at a later point.

Also: constantly Intoxicated characters are going to be a popular choice (disadvantage at attacks and checks, but incoming damage is reduced by 1d6?)

 

[Jaesun]

Also: constantly Intoxicated characters are going to be a popular choice (disadvantage at attacks and checks, but incoming damage is reduced by 1d6?) :p

What were the 3rd edition rules on drunkenness? I vaguely remember something in the 2nd edition. I don't remember the exact particulars though.

 

[deuxhero]

What were the 3rd edition rules on drunkenness? I vaguely remember something in the 2nd edition. I don't remember the exact particulars though.

Penalty on mental stats if you fail a save against it and the (really bad) Drunken Master prc is based around it, but booze is a poison in the rules, which allows for all sorts of crazy stuff

 

[lightbane]

Also: constantly Intoxicated characters are going to be a popular choice (disadvantage at attacks and checks, but incoming damage is reduced by 1d6?) :p

In before Monks with Drunken Style feats that quickly become OP.

 

[CappenVarra]

Also: constantly Intoxicated characters are going to be a popular choice (disadvantage at attacks and checks, but incoming damage is reduced by 1d6?) :p

In before Monks with Drunken Style feats that quickly become OP.

Meh. I expect that part (Intoxicated giving DR) to be left on the cutting floor in the first update, there's just no way to leave it like that. I mean, create a wimpy Wizard (12 HP), spam Magic Missle (that doesn't use an attack roll or a check, thus avoiding the downside), and get to resist 3.5 (over 25% of your overall HP) of damage on average from every incoming hit. Yeah, that works just great

 

[Mother Russia]

Awesome!! Thanks for the link to the playtest doc. Will be reading this soon 4 sure.

However, I am not happy about this new edition. First, it has brought back stupid vancian memorization magick and the spells have the same, unmagicky names and are too technical in detail. How totally unmysterious and unmagick like.

Still, I will reserve full judgement until I learn more. I WILL say I much preferred the direction they took with 4e; sure the execution was not good at all, but it was a great step in the right direction. They should have pared down and then reevolved from 4e, not gone back to 3e to get Pathfinder fans back (which they wont)