D&DNext: Playtest Review

[malak]

It wouldn't be so bad if it was simply ability mod + proficiency. But no, random shit has to add to that. Does it stack? Who knows...

But the real problem even that already in the currently released material is that not all stats are created equal. Every second spell targets DEX...

[Voss]

It wouldn't be so bad if it was simply ability mod + proficiency. But no, random shit has to add to that. Does it stack? Who knows...

But the real problem even that already in the currently released material is that not all stats are created equal. Every second spell targets DEX...

Oh yeah. There is a really blatant gap between saves, including monster abilities as well as spells. I don't have exact numbers, but a casual eyeball of it can see

Dex
Wis
Con
.
<massive gap>
.
Int
Str
Cha

[malak]

So in theory, all saves can be targeted, but in practice, they chose a subset consisting of (surprise) Ref/Will/Fort saves...

[Username17]

So in theory, all saves can be targeted, but in practice, they chose a subset consisting of (surprise) Ref/Will/Fort saves...

Yeah, we did some TNE work on making the six stats all be defenses. The problem is that it's actually really difficult to spread defenses out. Partly, it's because the six stats are fairly stupid. Partly it's because Strength and Charisma are conceptually about doing things rather than anything remotely defensive. Partly it's because Strength and Constitution aren't really narratively distinct. But mostly it's because it's very hard to justify an attack that targets a purely mental stat in any kind of physical way, while it's easy to justify a magical effect that targets a physical stat.

Speed and Toughness are the only defenses that are "real" in a physical sense. And once you have your go-to mental defense, that's pretty much everything covered. Six defenses is just really a lot, and if you don't spend your time actively making sure that there are an even number of cards assigned to each defense, there simply aren't going to be. Charisma Defense is like Sonic Resistance, it just doesn't come up when you're designing from the role playing backwards, it only appears at all if you start designing from the standpoint "we don't have enough Charisma attacks."

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

In my current game (3.tome+home), I houseruled the other stats into save-bases as well, as an experiment.

At first, Tenacity (Str) took over the small number of effects that involved being moved externally, like Gust of Wind. It has since expanded to also resist transformative effects. It still doesn't come up as often as Fort saves, but Str is seen as more overall useful, so the players are satisfied.

Insight (Int) was for illusion-related saves, and Composure (Cha) started out as the resistance for mind-reading effects, but has expanded to be the catch-all for everything that isn't either illusion or mind control (charm or compulsion). That's been a pretty even spread.

[Voss]

So in theory, all saves can be targeted, but in practice, they chose a subset consisting of (surprise) Ref/Will/Fort saves...

pretty much. And even when strength comes up against monster attacks, it isn't always a save. Sometimes it is (like avoiding engluf attacks from air or water elementals, or gelatinous cubes), kobold glue pots, otyugh tentacles or knockdowns from minotaurs, but sometimes it is a contest (such as the balor's whip attack or against carnivorous monkeys. And sometimes it is just a check, like getting out from under rocks thrown by a cyclops (after they hit you, and... yeah) or yanking a stirge off someone.

For spells, entangle, thunderous smite and gust of wind call for strength saves. You'd think web would as well, but that is a dex save, followed by strength checks if you fail. (Webs from actual spiders just involve the spider hitting you, then strength checks to escape), which given the default disparity between AC and dex saves, means the web spell is far more dangerous than actual spider webs. But then again, against spider webs, the DC for the check is 11, but against the spell it is the save DC (but not a save... so that can scale up to 20 or so).

So realistically, there are <10 strength saves in the entire game so far. And other things that are checks or contests, but no sense of consistency about it at all.


Intelligence is just mind flayers psychic blast and no spells.

Charisma: optional dracolich gaze, pit fiend fear, bone and horned devil fear and cyclops evil eye. Note: dragon fear is a wisdom save, as are fear based spells. I don't even want to understand why devil and undead dragon fear is different from other fear.
Charisma spell saves: zone of truth, banishment, holy word, plane shift.

So actually I was wrong, the order for the rare saves is charisma (9), strength(9) and int at the bottom with one single saving throw.
But strength has a bunch of other checks and contests, so is more broadly useful with different mechanical systems. But the fighter's proficiency bonus to strength save bonus matters to exactly 6 individual monsters and 2 specific spells. On the other hand, the bard and mage get a bonus to int saves, which will only ever matter against mind flayers, but at least the mage gets wisdom save bonuses as well, while the bard's other bonus is fucking charisma. So the bard gets a save bonus against exactly 10 things in the entire game.

Wisdom saves, on the other hand, come up 25 times in monster entries and 26 times in spells.
Dex: 17 critters and 32 spells
Con: 38 critters and 27 spells.

So, yeah. The catch is strength, wisdom and dex also have a lot of associated checks that _aren't_ saves, so strength still matters as a stat, but the strength save bonus that fighters and barbarians get is rather trivial. But the class bonuses to saves are huge deal, with the bard getting it raw, and monk and ranger (dex & wis) smiling, and the paladin (con, and charisma, but a charisma bonus on all saves, which the pally also can grant to the party) is really happy. Given the sheer numbers involved with Con, the Fighter and Barbarian aren't all that bad off.

[Voss]

In case anyone cares.... they're taking the playtest materials down on Sunday.

I'm actually more puzzled that they're taking the effort to take the things down, since anyone who wants can find them elsewhere on the web. I rather suspect it is because they started selling the GenCon exclusive playtest rules/module through DriveThruRPG. Buy maybe they hope people will forget what the playtest rules were.

[shadzar]

In case anyone cares.... they're taking the playtest materials down on Sunday.

I'm actually more puzzled that they're taking the effort to take the things down, since anyone who wants can find them elsewhere on the web. I rather suspect it is because they started selling the GenCon exclusive playtest rules/module through DriveThruRPG. Buy maybe they hope people will forget what the playtest rules were.

because for 3 packets now Mearls has said that the rules they use (the closed playtest) are vastly different than what has been in the (open) playtest. meaning the playtest had material that was last updated maybe in 2011.

so the rules seen in the new things coming out at the beginning of 2014 will have rules that look VERY different than the playtest rules.

and why bother giving away the rules, when you can start charging for them on PDF?

[JonSetanta]

Rogues don't get Sneak Attack if they go first in combat.
I feel cheated of their minor advantages.

Also the "Legacy of the Crystal Shard" adventure had five level 1 characters fighting a pair of Bear Tribe warriors and a level 4 shaman.
I don't care what the writer's version of balance is, that wasn't fair, we almost lost half the party due to 1-hit KOs.
A swing with an axe. 12 damage vs 8 HP.
A blast with 3d8 inflict spell. Near death.
All our potions were drained.
Fuck the writer of that adventure, you don't pit a level 4 spellcaster against level 1 characters.

[OgreBattle]

Rogues don't get Sneak Attack if they go first in combat.
I feel cheated of their minor advantages.

Also the "Legacy of the Crystal Shard" adventure had five level 1 characters fighting a pair of Bear Tribe warriors and a level 4 shaman.
I don't care what the writer's version of balance is, that wasn't fair, we almost lost half the party due to 1-hit KOs.
A swing with an axe. 12 damage vs 8 HP.
A blast with 3d8 inflict spell. Near death.
All our potions were drained.
Fuck the writer of that adventure, you don't pit a level 4 spellcaster against level 1 characters.

Did you still win the encounter?

[Voss]

In case anyone cares.... they're taking the playtest materials down on Sunday.

I'm actually more puzzled that they're taking the effort to take the things down, since anyone who wants can find them elsewhere on the web. I rather suspect it is because they started selling the GenCon exclusive playtest rules/module through DriveThruRPG. Buy maybe they hope people will forget what the playtest rules were.

because for 3 packets now Mearls has said that the rules they use (the closed playtest) are vastly different than what has been in the (open) playtest. meaning the playtest had material that was last updated maybe in 2011.

Yeah, that isn't true, as witnessed by thousands (or hundreds) in the McKillzalot live video which mentioned not finishing the bard that appeared in nothing but the final playtest docs.

The stuff they're doing now is clearly off the rails from the playtest materials, but the last year saw a lot of stuff change in real time (though often for the worse).


@sigma- yeah, you have to be level 3 and pick the assassin tree to sneak attack people before they act. The Next rogue never wants to go first- you ALWAYS want an ally to go stand next to your target before you attack, otherwise you can't use your (once-per-round) sneak attack without resorting to fudging the terrible hiding rules.

But honestly the rogue damage is really terrible and scales badly. Weapon damage +1d6 once per round, is pretty terrible, as is the every 3 additional levels (4 to get to 2d6) advancement rate. Other classes also start getting additional attacks or extra damage added to their cantrips 100% of the time when the rogue's still situational sneak attack die increases.

Like Paizo, Mearls and company doesn't seem to recognize that earning greatsword-equivalent damage is not a worthwhile class feature if it takes you multiple levels to stop being punished for not taking the optimal weapons.

[shadzar]

In case anyone cares.... they're taking the playtest materials down on Sunday.

I'm actually more puzzled that they're taking the effort to take the things down, since anyone who wants can find them elsewhere on the web. I rather suspect it is because they started selling the GenCon exclusive playtest rules/module through DriveThruRPG. Buy maybe they hope people will forget what the playtest rules were.

because for 3 packets now Mearls has said that the rules they use (the closed playtest) are vastly different than what has been in the (open) playtest. meaning the playtest had material that was last updated maybe in 2011.

Yeah, that isn't true, as witnessed by thousands (or hundreds) in the McKillzalot live video which mentioned not finishing the bard that appeared in nothing but the final playtest docs.

you really don't understand how design works. in the video you mention you really cant see any rules in action. oh you know there are some, but it doesnt mean the ones being used are the latest ones used int he clsoed playtest. even after that video and many time through the playtest it is mentinoed that they are using things that differ form the playtest given for download.

they basically admit, they are doing things without taking the public playtest seriously if they have already moved on to other things and changing them rather than waiting or feedback from the most recent changes int he playtest.

the fact the bard wasnt present means someone just had to spend a weekend and write something up. for all anyone knows, and as far was said. the final playtest packet will NOT be the final rules, and that bard presented could jsut be something a few years odl and they are giving as-is and havent really begun working on it.

i mean they give the last public playtest packet then shortly after are taking it down. this does not mean the closed (family and friends) playtest was anywhere near the same material or is done. this goes with he idea that many things have been passed off to others (art to China for example, game math to an entirely new team, etc)

[Voss]

because for 3 packets now Mearls has said that the rules they use (the closed playtest) are vastly different than what has been in the (open) playtest. meaning the playtest had material that was last updated maybe in 2011.

Yeah, that isn't true, as witnessed by thousands (or hundreds) in the McKillzalot live video which mentioned not finishing the bard that appeared in nothing but the final playtest docs.

you really don't understand how design works. in the video you mention you really cant see any rules in action. oh you know there are some, but it doesnt mean the ones being used are the latest ones used int he clsoed playtest. even after that video and many time through the playtest it is mentinoed that they are using things that differ form the playtest given for download.

they basically admit, they are doing things without taking the public playtest seriously if they have already moved on to other things and changing them rather than waiting or feedback from the most recent changes int he playtest.

the fact the bard wasnt present means someone just had to spend a weekend and write something up. for all anyone knows, and as far was said. the final playtest packet will NOT be the final rules, and that bard presented could jsut be something a few years odl and they are giving as-is and havent really begun working on it.

i mean they give the last public playtest packet then shortly after are taking it down. this does not mean the closed (family and friends) playtest was anywhere near the same material or is done. this goes with he idea that many things have been passed off to others (art to China for example, game math to an entirely new team, etc)

Ah, right. shadzar.

No, it wasn't about the bard being _present_ or any rules at all being presented in the stupid podcast. The developers were actually talking about the bard not being finished. As in, one of them was the class designer for the bard, and they were taunting him about not having finished the class for the then-current playtest packet. (It went in the next one).

But yes, of course the playtest version won't be the final rules. That is... obvious. It is also equally obvious that they're going to add random shit that doesn't have much at all to do with the playtest. But your assertion that they pulled out shit from 2011 and made no changes during the playtest process is equally absurd.

[shadzar]

do you not think those videos of play are jsut marketing? the 4th video podcast ws the same thing, but it showed how some of the rules were being used and worked like the powers. the things people responded towards that video might have made them change how they do videos so as NOT to show the rules. also the fact that MANY people have asked in various places about the bard, the "jokes" about it are likely osmething that was planned, because they all knew it wouldnt be ready because maybe it wasnt planned to be ready, but using the class designer as a fall guy, they poked fun of him (as MEarls the boss has a right to do without any underling being able to complain, thus the comments "Ok Boss, whatever you say", is made on more than one of those videos even their home game.) this appeased the people asking about the bard by pointing a finger at someone.

in no way do those videos show they are playing with the current playtest packet at the time.

you do realize they have multiple playtests going at the same time right?

you know the closer and open playtest has different rules right? the closed being used by the designers and their close personal friends and family, and the open one where they are willing to release more information to the public.

which was the video using? how long has the closed playtest had bards?

again, go back and read L&L articles to see where Mearls states that the playtest many people ask about is NOT the same rules they are using currently. Mearls admits and never even tried to hide there are different playtests going on, but you jsut wont realize that and seem to think that they are using the same thing given to everyone. you are naive in thinking that everything mentioned in the playtest reports/responses has had an effect ont he actual rules.

it was said LONG ago, that the open playtest was just a marketing ploy to emulate what Paizo did, and PF beta was very different than the printed books as well many things different than what people expected when they responded to that playtest.

[JonSetanta]

Did you still win the encounter?

Yes but the party mage stole my rogue's gold while he was unconscious.
Being the good roleplayer I didn't use out of character knowledge to pursecute him for it. I've been pickpocketing the Kender throughout the whole campaign, and our DM refers to our half of a larger split group of 14 players as "the evil party".

[shadzar]

so last week they pulled the playtest from online, and had maybe a week or so since the last packet.

Wizards of the Coast has announced a broad release date for the "Next" version of the Dungeons and Dragons rules: Summer 2014.

so nothing new from consumers will even be able to go into the game as when Jon S left, the art wasnt the only thing done and sent off to China. China is where they PRINT the books, so they have maybe a few weeks into January to finalize, get a test print run, fix errors and send back to China in order to have books ont he shelves by this coming summer.

[tussock]

Summer does seem early. I know layout and stuff's getting quicker all the time, but 4e took almost a year from the basic text of the PHB and MM being finished to hitting the shelves, and final tweaking of numbers finished no closer than six months out.

I guess late summer is still eight months out, and if they sacked the art director because the art was finished ....

[deaddmwalking]

It does seem to me that they're basically not open to additional feedback from the final playtest. There really are only two possibilities:

1) They consider the game as released in the final playtest to be basically complete and the final game will be very similar.

2) The final game will look nothing like the final playtest, so none of the mechanics will have been tested at all.

Since I don't think the concept of Bounded Accuracy works, I'm not going to be pleased with either option.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The best possibility for 5E D&D I think is either:

A.) Someone responsible for the production of 5E D&D realizes how much of a boat anchor Mike Mearls is and lets him spend the next few months doodling elf-boobs while they release the REAL material behind his back. They waited this long so that Mike Mearls couldn't derail the actual project with his overpromises and half-baked ideas in an attempt to look cool to the public.

B.) Someone in Hasbro grows half a brain, notices that Mike Mearls et. al haven't done jack fucking shit for the last 18 months, then fires him and most of the staff. They totally pull a SquareSoft, reveal the truth behind the project, fucking apologize to the audience, then pull in guys from MtG or whatever to finish the project.

Mike Mearls gets welfare from Pathfinder, because once you've hired Sean Fucking Reynolds to promulgate official rules interpretations you don't have any standards and you might as well grab a guy who is well known for accumulating stupid fanboys..

[Seerow]

The best possibility for 5E D&D I think is either:

A.) Someone responsible for the production of 5E D&D realizes how much of a boat anchor Mike Mearls is and lets him spend the next few months doodling elf-boobs while they release the REAL material behind his back. They waited this long so that Mike Mearls couldn't derail the actual project with his overpromises and half-baked ideas in an attempt to look cool to the public.

B.) Someone in Hasbro grows half a brain, notices that Mike Mearls et. al haven't done jack fucking shit for the last 18 months, then fires him and most of the staff. They totally pull a SquareSoft, reveal the truth behind the project, fucking apologize to the audience, then pull in guys from MtG or whatever to finish the project.

Mike Mearls gets welfare from Pathfinder, because once you've hired Sean Fucking Reynolds to promulgate official rules interpretations you don't have any standards and you might as well grab a guy who is well known for accumulating stupid fanboys..

Maybe the best possibility, but somehow I find either scenario very unlikely.

[shadzar]

so DDN, and with it D&D, dies not with a bang but a whimper, as people realize it is really just bland, and not the monstrosity to hate like 4th edition was and just becomes a collection of logos to put on board games.

i am still waiting the lay-off announcements or was the art department enough glut to cut in order to keep giving people paychecks in all the rest of D&D, since Mearls and Wyatt have already handed things off to other people. they really have no purpose left.

the articles for D&D then lose 2 writers and have only Greenwood left to discuss FR.

will more people migrate to PF, or just quit with TTRPGs? was it HASBRO's plan to kill off some niche hobby like TTRPGs and take its stuff (were they trying to "WIN" at D&D) for them to produce second rate imitations for "Euro-games" and other mind-numbing board games that are boring even to those of the youngest in its age range?

[shadzar]

. http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... e/2013end1 .

hey remember when we still had an art director before sending everything to china to print it, and were just starting to screw things up?

Dragon’s-Eye View Archive | 12/26/2013New!

Reimagining Kobolds
Dragon's-Eye View
By Jon Schindehette

During the holiday season, we're looking back at some of the most popular articles this year, within each column. Today's Dragon's-Eye View originally ran back on January 2.

in light of things, this was probably scheduled to happen long ago and they thought they would still had this column and not have had its author quit 2 months ago.

make me wonder what really happened to rush things so this article rehash today just looks silly and out of place, and to show they don't even know what they are doing.

then i remembered that it is pink-slip season at HASBRO, so people had to get some revenue stream beginning to flow from somewhere or they would find something in their stocking at work that was worse than coal. well for us it might have been better than coal for some D&D designers to get.

so for those that took part of the playtest i ask... did ANY of Jon's bad dieas for not only redesigning the look but the functions of monsters actually make it into the playtest? do kobolds act like his article says? are halflings Heimdingers cousins?

was there even any art in the playtests?

[deaddmwalking]

His re-imagining of kobolds makes them sound like humanoid chameleons - minus the camouflage.

[OgreBattle]

His re-imagining of kobolds makes them sound like humanoid chameleons - minus the camouflage.

Sounds like a Warhammer Fantasy skink

I really, really like the bestiary and humanoids in WHF, so that's a nice thing.

Still, the 3e style kobolds are already a distinct D&D thing in my mind, they're skinny little lizard things that worship dragons and set traps to put sexy haflings in suggestive situations.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Maybe the best possibility, but somehow I find either scenario very unlikely.

It's only unlikely because Hasbro is incompetent and doesn't give a fuck.

Mike Mearls has sat on his ass for a year and a half releasing very little salable product after being the head guy for a product that tanked spectacularly. I think that any senior management worth its salt, from a lowly start-up to a AAA Shadowrun Megacorp, would have noticed this by now and shown him the door.

There's no need to be able to read between the lines or know how the rules work or even what D&D stands for. They just need to think: 'We have a guy that has a history of failure and hasn't made us any money for 18 months while drawing a salary. Why is he still employed, let alone the project manager of a major IP?'