Playtest Feedback.   Posted by GM.Group: 0
Rick
 player, 116 posts
 Rician Hawklight (160xp)
 AC 11, HP 7
Wed 16 Oct 2013
at 07:37
Re: Playtest Feedback
In reply to Rick (msg # 38):

The latest playtest survey is out... and we haven't had a chance to see multiclassing yet :(

This message had punctuation tweaked by the player at 15:56, Wed 16 Oct 2013.

GM
 GM, 199 posts
Tue 5 Nov 2013
at 15:22
Re: Playtest Feedback
Rolling for treasure is REALLY fun and reminds of my very first edition D&D days when we had no idea what we were doing. I love that it involves about a hundred dice rolls with various types of dice and is incredibly intricate and not particularly easy to understand, streamlined or sensible.
Conrad
 player, 138 posts
 Ranger
 AC 15, HP 20
Thu 7 Nov 2013
at 17:46
Re: Playtest Feedback
Is dual-wielding with slayer's momentum broken for Rangers?  It seems like a solid +1d6 on every hit, as long as you consistently hit at least once each turn.
Donnel
 player, 87 posts
 AC 14
 HP 9/9
Fri 8 Nov 2013
at 02:44
Re: Playtest Feedback
the more dice, the more tables, the better.

Donnel still remains the suckage as a viable pc.
Conrad
 player, 144 posts
 Ranger
 AC 15, HP 20
Sun 10 Nov 2013
at 14:37
Re: Playtest Feedback
No worries, I'm sure he'll get better. I remember past versions of d&d where monks started off bad but got amazing at higher levels.
Delmedus
 player, 140 posts
 Human Fighter
 AC 19 HP 13/13
Sun 10 Nov 2013
at 14:50
Re: Playtest Feedback
I don't know where you got the suckage part Donnel.  You have killed more bad guys than the rest of us put together.
Conrad
 player, 145 posts
 Ranger
 AC 15, HP 20
Sun 10 Nov 2013
at 15:11
Re: Playtest Feedback
Haha, that's right. When the kobolds ambushed, most of us floundered. Meanwhile, you snuck around and wiped enough of them out that they ran screaming to their cave.
Donnel
 player, 90 posts
 AC 14
 HP 9/9
Mon 11 Nov 2013
at 20:51
Re: Playtest Feedback
statistical anomalies, fun at the time but not in it for the long haul.
Delmedus
 player, 160 posts
 Human Fighter
 AC 19 HP 20/21
Mon 25 Nov 2013
at 13:36
Re: Playtest Feedback
Looking at the armor prices I think that the full plate armor is priced correctly but the mithral plate is only 1000gp more, kinda didn't make sense due to the metal being so rare. That and the mithral shirt is 5K and the full plate is just 6K.

Also the Heavy Armor Masters feat is pretty impressive.  Besides granting the use of heavy armor and no speed penalty it gives immediate damage reduction equal to your con bonus. That is pretty impressive for a feat you can start off taking on the first round of feats. That should be like a third tear feat after taking to others.

If they allow feats at first level then a any character with a good con will be a little over powered, in my opinion. But just think, a dwarf with a 20 con at first level can have a DR of 5 with using chain mail.  Pretty impressive.
Rick
 player, 180 posts
 Rician Hawklight (239xp)
 AC 11, HP 12
Tue 26 Nov 2013
at 05:57
Re: Playtest Feedback
In reply to Delmedus (msg # 47):

Armor seems priced by "status" rather than "stats"
GM
 GM, 231 posts
Tue 26 Nov 2013
at 18:42
Re: Playtest Feedback
- D&D next has less workload on the GM than D&D4th edition, much less that D&D3rd edition and D&D2nd edition, and even has less than D&D1st Ed (due to better encounter-building guidelines) if my memory serves but its been very long since I last GMd 1st ed. Still - Next has noticeably reduced GM-prep times over previous editions which is a very very good thing, especially for a GM.
Delmedus
 player, 165 posts
 Human Fighter
 AC 19 HP 20/21
Tue 26 Nov 2013
at 19:22
Re: Playtest Feedback
I am liking it.  It seems to have the quick ability to start and play a game without all the unnecesary bells and whistles.  It will be even better if they do not come out with umpteen thousand supplimental books that just further confuse gameplay and allow munchkins to min/max a game to death.

Rick you make a good point about status rather than stats.  Full plate armor should be hard to come by and in some games I played the DM made it almost illegal to wear armor heavier than chain.  If you wanted heavier armor the character would have to prove to the local lord he is worthy to wear it and then would have to carry papers for it.  Good concept that made gameplay interesting.
Conrad
 player, 174 posts
 Ranger
 AC 15, HP 20
Wed 27 Nov 2013
at 01:35
Re: Playtest Feedback
Sadly, all the supplements are how they make their money.  They have to release more until the edition is too cluttered, then release a new edition.  4E seems almost impossible to character generate without a subscription, which was probably a part of their strategy.

For now, D&D Next does seem a lot cleaner.  Even with more supplements, it looks like there'll be less material to accumulate.
Donnel
 player, 98 posts
 AC 14
 HP 8/9
Wed 27 Nov 2013
at 04:10
Re: Playtest Feedback
Have to play a few more levels before I have a better sense of it. Post-AD&D iterations did fall prey to over-development.
Conrad
 player, 200 posts
 Ranger
 AC 15, HP 20
Tue 10 Dec 2013
at 05:22
Re: Playtest Feedback
Point Blank should definitely cause a penalty with ranged attacks.  There isn't anything in the rules, but it would make more sense.
Delmedus
 player, 193 posts
 Human Fighter
 AC 19 HP 18/21
Tue 10 Dec 2013
at 05:31
Re: Playtest Feedback
I am not following your logic here?  How would it make more sense? (Just curious)  I think the greatest penalty should be that it provokes a attack of opportunity since you are defenceless each time you pull an arrow.
Conrad
 player, 201 posts
 Ranger
 AC 15, HP 20
Tue 10 Dec 2013
at 06:25
Re: Playtest Feedback
That does make more sense.  Currently, there is no penalty or oa from point blank shots.  I just agree that there should be something.

In the current playtest RAW, the only penalty is for long-range (disadvantage), with nothing for close (How to Play, pg.20).

We're house ruling disadvantage for it, but it seems like something that should be in the rules.  Otherwise archer characters will probably just use their ranged weapons for everything.

To a small degree, it might be balanced by the fact that ranged weapons are weaker than equivalent melee weapons.  For example, if I'd attacked smarter, dropped the bow and switched to axe before attacking, I'd have rolled d10 (versatile) instead of d8 for the damage.  (edit: melee weapons with the same properties as a longbow have double the dice or dice size)

This message was last edited by the player at 06:33, Tue 10 Dec 2013.

GM
 GM, 261 posts
Tue 10 Dec 2013
at 07:22
Re: Playtest Feedback
Lead developer of D&D Next recently posted this (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Art...x?x=dnd/4ll/20131202) which I think is a sensible approach and will most likely appear in final rules.
quote:
Along these lines, we've talked about adding drawbacks to using bows and ranged weapons in melee. Prior editions used opportunity attacks to punish such attacks, but I don't think a free attack necessarily captures what actually happens when you try to use a bow in melee. Instead, I might advocate for a new trait for weaponsócall it 'unwieldy' for nowóthat we can use to capture the sense that some weapons are a bad choice for close-in fighting. You suffer disadvantage when using an unwieldy weapon within 5 feet of a hostile creature. The longbow, sling, and longspear might be labeled unwieldy, capturing the idea that they are difficult to use when an enemy presses in close.

Rather than use the opportunity attack rules and make everyone learn another exception, the unwieldy rule puts the burden on the attacker and links it to a subset of weapons. Simply by envisioning a character trying to use the weapon while surrounded by orcs, a player can get a clear sense of how and why the drawback makes sense. Even without the rule, many players will intuitively understand that you don't use a longspear or bow in close quarters fighting. As such, the players' sense of the real world makes it seem logical that some sort of drawback should come into play.

Delmedus
 player, 194 posts
 Human Fighter
 AC 19 HP 18/21
Tue 10 Dec 2013
at 13:52
Re: Playtest Feedback
That is a great approach making ranged weapons disadvantaged to use at less than 5'.  I can understand why they do not want to impliment the AOOs to try and keep the game simple, but I think that if a magic user can get a AOO when casting so should a archer.  Good call though on the thinking out of items in the new edition.
Conrad
 player, 225 posts
Sun 22 Dec 2013
at 11:16
Re: Playtest Feedback

This message was deleted by the player at 11:17, Sun 22 Dec 2013.

Delmedus
 player, 249 posts
 Human Fighter
 AC 19 HP 20/21
Wed 22 Jan 2014
at 18:23
Re: Playtest Feedback
It is sad to see the knight option did not continue to this playpacket. It was a good fit for an honorable fighter.
Rick
 player, 258 posts
 Rician Hawklight (950xp)
 AC 11, HP 15/19
Thu 23 Jan 2014
at 13:41
Re: Playtest Feedback
In reply to Delmedus (msg # 59):

Seems we will find out at the end of the year what is in and what is out.

BTW, anyone know if they still have a means of sending feedback?
Conrad
 player, 315 posts
 Ranger
 AC 16, HP 20/28
Fri 14 Mar 2014
at 01:17
Re: Playtest Feedback
I just realized that Rangers don't get a proficiency bonus to their Tracking class ability.  Seems like it should go up, just like other skills like Perception and Notice.
Rick
 player, 305 posts
 Rician Hawklight (950xp)
 AC 14, HP 15/19
Fri 14 Mar 2014
at 07:25
Re: Playtest Feedback
You sure? Isn't it automatic and if you roll it's a trained skill?
Conrad
 player, 316 posts
 Ranger
 AC 16, HP 20/28
Fri 14 Mar 2014
at 07:33
Re: Playtest Feedback
It's not a trained skill, though, it's a class feature.  By RAW, it wouldn't get a bonus (as near as I can tell from reading the rules), but a prof. bonus would make sense since it acts a bit like a skill.