Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Playtest copies went out today, did you get yours? WELL DID YOU?!

Haven't had a chance to go over it to thoroughly so I am not really ready to make to many judgements, but I will say this: Searing Light Level 1 Cleric Spell, 4d12 + Wis against Undead. That is a heck of a level 1 Spell.

I'm not certain it is going to fix the whole problem of Fighters at high level being weak while Wizards dominate. The Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic seems interesting. You know make saving throws, 3/3.5/PF style but against any stat, not special save numbers. Dumped CHA and now have to make a save against Charm*? Good Luck with that.

Curious how HP is determined, as to whether it is set or randomized. Each class gets a number off Hit Dice (wouldn't call them Healing Surges now could we?) that they can spend to heal yourself each day. Fighters get d12's, Wizards get d6's. I think the idea was that if you don't have a cleric you can still heal yourself a bit. After a battle the Fighter is low on HP and has 3d12 of Hit Dice so he spends two, rolling 2d12 and gaining that many back. He now only has 1d12 he can use for the rest of the day if he needs to heal again.

Mine wont download >.>

I signed up, went through all the hoops (like that dumb "whats this say" security thing) and it just took me to a white screen of death.... I went through it like six times now but they wont let me have it :(

BewareOfTom wrote:Mine wont download >.>

I signed up, went through all the hoops (like that dumb "whats this say" security thing) and it just took me to a white screen of death.... I went through it like six times now but they wont let me have it :(

I was having trouble with it as well, and so were a few others I know. Luckily someone posted it elsewhere and that is where I ended up getting it from. I can't believe they didn't prepare for their servers getting hit on the day they released the playtest rules,

Yeah, their servers are getting hammered. Finally got a to a help page that said they were having login issues for several sections of their site.

meh, I'll just wait a day or so XD

Or find alternative means like reddits thread etc

Had a quick glance, doesn't look worthy of changing from 4th. I like 4th and it works for me. 5th seems like a mash of 2,3 and 4. The only thing of interest is the 'advantage/disadvantage' mechanic

Phototoxin wrote:Or find alternative means like reddits thread etc

Had a quick glance, doesn't look worthy of changing from 4th. I like 4th and it works for me. 5th seems like a mash of 2,3 and 4. The only thing of interest is the 'advantage/disadvantage' mechanic

Their stated goal is to reduce 'edition wars' so mashing up bits of previous editions is probably quite accurate.

I like (from what I've heard) some things. The 'numbers' are a bit flatter, so less rolling a d20+37 for attack rolls at high levels.

I've heard the playtest fighter is a 'boring' fighter. I hope they know how many people don't like that idea, and add a playtest option to make it more interesting.

This is supposed to be a pretty early playtest doc, so a lot is still undefined or rough. I do like that the general attitude is switching back to the GM making things up, as compared to 4e's base assumption where pre-made modules could almost be run by a computer program if the group didn't go beyond that.

I remain cautiously optimistic.

That said when I read 4th I was like 'WTF this won't work' but since this is basically 3rd stripped down a bit and mixed with 2nd AD&D it will work - but will just be as arbitrary and klunky as they were

So, would anyone know why I keep getting a HTTP 400 Error whenever I try to go to the playtest download website?

infinite_array wrote:So, would anyone know why I keep getting a HTTP 400 Error whenever I try to go to the playtest download website?

Their servers are squealing with pain.

(There should be an HTTP status code for that...)

4th works very well at low-mid levels, but it has a definite niche that is not to everyone's taste. I'm hopefully that 5th/Next will be interesting int hat they've pledged to support both 'tactical' combats (battle-mat) and more free-form. I love getting out a battle-mat for big fights, but it's overkill and doesn't work as well for some very common D&D situations like being strafed by a flying foe, running fights, or the oh-so-common 'Something nasty jumped out of a crypt at me."

Something interesting I've heard is that in addition to race & class characters now have 'themes.' There's themes added as characters progress, and these look to replace prestige classes. There's a loose structure (again, from what I've heard) that 'Class' is more "What the character does in a fight" while Themes are "What the character does outside of a fight."

One neat thing I've heard is that the Researcher theme, for example, states that failed Knowledge rolls still reveal how to find the requested knowledge... So for investigative scenarios, it goes from pixel-bitching when the PCs blow the knowledge roll to "Oh, you have no clue about the significance of the GIlman familly, but you have a feeling the Old Library might have some records. And it's a great spot for an ambush by the thugs. Wait, forget I said that last part."

I.E. turning no-fun into plot hooks!

A friend of mine has a copy; we're playing on Monday.

Having read through but not run a game yet I can only see Advantages/Disadvantages and Themes as being any different from a simplified 3.0/3.5. Seems kinda flat but maybe the designers are trying to work on one specific mechanic with this batch of material.

I spent a few minutes looking over the character sheets and I have no enthusiasm for it whatsoever.

From reading some other playtest experiences there is some concern that fighter is once again back to "Basic attack. Basic attack. Surge (i.e. Action Point) basic attack. Basic Attack. Oh it's my turn? Basic attack."

I won't get to playtest it until next week sometime.

I wish I could take a look at this, but I didn't sign up.

I'm really enjoying Pathfinder, so I'm curious how this will turn out.

So, please keep this thread updated, when you guys get to play. I really want to know how it stacks up.

I don't know what the restrictions are on getting the playtest copies, but maybe I can arrange to record the session or something.

With the new IKRPG(the only reason I still own 3.5 books) coming out at the end of summer, I see no reason to switch from 2nd ed for D&D campaigns.

I hope they keep a few of the 4E classes for Next, such as Warlord. 3.5 kind of had something like it in the Marshall but that was hidden in the Miniatures Book for some reason. I should be clear I am referring to core classes, not prestige. A non-divine healing/leading class would be nice to see. Paladin is a leader (or can be) but they don't quite have the healing thing going on and once again we are back to divine. I am curious to see how monks are handled as well.

Platuan4th wrote:With the new IKRPG(the only reason I still own 3.5 books) coming out at the end of summer, I see no reason to switch from 2nd ed for D&D campaigns.

I thought they were moving to their own system for the new version?

Balance wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:With the new IKRPG(the only reason I still own 3.5 books) coming out at the end of summer, I see no reason to switch from 2nd ed for D&D campaigns.

I thought they were moving to their own system for the new version?

They are. It's completely unlike the older edition. Essentially uses a system based on their Warmachine/Hordes rules.

And I'm still not getting though. Damn. Well, forget it. I'm just going to buy a copy of the Discworld Gurps book and call it a day.

Ahtman wrote:From reading some other playtest experiences there is some concern that fighter is once again back to "Basic attack. Basic attack. Surge (i.e. Action Point) basic attack. Basic Attack. Oh it's my turn? Basic attack."

Does the starting fighter in the playtest materials not have 4e-style powers then?

warboss wrote:

Ahtman wrote:From reading some other playtest experiences there is some concern that fighter is once again back to "Basic attack. Basic attack. Surge (i.e. Action Point) basic attack. Basic Attack. Oh it's my turn? Basic attack."

Does the starting fighter in the playtest materials not have 4e-style powers then?

At the moment they do not, though he is also the only one with an Action Point aka Surge. All the other pregen characters are two pages, whereas the Fighter fits all on one. Maybe at higher levels they may get more options but at the moment it seems to be Caster Edition: The Return.

Interesting... Mike Mearls made it a point to talk up how great, varied, and happy he was with how the fighter was turning out in posts and interviews. While its completely inappropriate to make a final decision based on the first prelim low level pregen build available, it doesn't sound like the fighter is starting out with as big of a bang as he was alluding to.

daedalus wrote:I don't know what the restrictions are on getting the playtest copies, but maybe I can arrange to record the session or something.

watch out for those fickle NDAs you signed when you signed up, because of that I would never, ever, ever want somebody to record the playest*

that being said, allegidly the massed encounters are pretty dire, one has 18 enemys at an advantage over you, so your DM should be rolling 2d20 pick highest 18 times, and each one only deals 1 damage, so much for faster combat

* also it would give me insight into how your group plays, that would be my third and it would let me see how your style of play differs to my groups or my dad's group

Yeah, the fighter doesn't have any explicit "powers", like in 4E, but the move of 5E seems to be more interested in going back to open-ended actions where you're more encouraged to do whatever you can dream up rather than looking to your sheet and seeing what you're capable of. Here's a post to read about "the fighter being boring": http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29136467/its_just_not_fun_to_me?pg=4

Any class can do more then what is written, that is never been in question. This is a mechanical issue, not a role playing one. In 4E you could still 'fluff' out any maneuver a character did, you just didn't have to ask for the DM's permission or make a bunch of skill checks that other classes don't make. On top of that you could still do what the poster describes in 4E on top of the Fighter still having more maneuvers. Mechanically the fighter just has basic attack.

Saying that role playing balances it out doesn't work since that is true for all classes, and the other classes still have more options.

Found a post in that thread that I think says it a little better.

xiombarg wrote:Labeling an explicit power system as uncreative and being all like "yay, simple fighters are great because you can improvise" is overly glib.

Improvisation isn't as easy or fun as one might think for everyone. Decision paralysis hits even the best players, and even the best players have bad days where it's good to have something better (if "uncreative") to fall back on than "I hit it".

Also, as some of the other posters have mentioned, never underestimate the fact that spells have a definitive effect that isn't dependent on GM fiat, and how when you add improv to THAT it makes spellcasters EVEN MORE powerful. Your "sand in the eyes" trick is even better when you can do it from an unexpected direction with Mage Hand.

If a fighter has some tricks he can do like that, he can incorporate those into improv in the same way. You can still improv if you have more options, you're just not required to. Why is that bad again?

But putting that aside, "It'll be OK if you have an awesome DM" is WAY too glib.

What if my otherwise-awesome DM has an off day? What if he's a nice guy but bad at improv? Or he's good with some kinds of improv, but not so good at combat improv?

Why shouldn't I want the system to help a little with those sorts of situations?

Allowing improv isn't the same as giving the DM good tools on how to make rulings on that improv. Not at all.

Ahtman wrote:Any class can do more then what is written, that is never been in question. This is a mechanical issue, not a role playing one. In 4E you could still 'fluff' out any maneuver a character did, you just didn't have to ask for the DM's permission or make a bunch of skill checks that other classes don't make. On top of that you could still do what the poster describes in 4E on top of the Fighter still having more maneuvers. Mechanically the fighter just has basic attack.

Saying that role playing balances it out doesn't work since that is true for all classes, and the other classes still have more options.

Balance and being boring are two different things. People are talking about the fighter being boring, which I think the post rather deftly negates. Mechanically, the fighter has attacks, yes. Because that's what a fighter does, he attacks. Bull rushing, shield bashing, throwing barrels at being are all effectively attacks, just different ways to go about them.

No one said roleplaying made him balanced, roleplaying makes him exciting.

This fighter's theme is what gives him a dose of balancing (and perhaps even a boost over the other classes at low level, but I've only played for a couple hours at this point) is his theme, which means he does damage even if he misses to the target. He deals at minimum 3 damage every turn he swings into melee or 1 damage any time he attacks with ranged and he combat survivability is much greater than the casters, etc.

But the developers have also said that this fighter was chosen to be streamlined to see how players liked it (and I assume to convince people who detest 4E to give it a whirl).

epy346 wrote: Bull rushing, shield bashing, throwing barrels at being are all effectively attacks, just different ways to go about them.

Except improv is role playing. The description given was that it wasn't mechanically boring because you could do improv, which is true of any class. All the things listed above in your statement are available to all classes and not just fighter. Fighter might typically be better at them than other classes, but they aren't unique to the fighter. Throw in a barbarian and you have someone with more options and could do all that stuff just as well. The trick here is that boring is referring to being mechanically boring, not personality boring. Just saying "Improv makes it not boring" doesn't work because that is a fundamental truth of the game all around, and doesn't really address the mechanical issues.

Ahtman wrote:

epy346 wrote: Bull rushing, shield bashing, throwing barrels at being are all effectively attacks, just different ways to go about them.

Except improv is role playing. The description given was that it wasn't mechanically boring because you could do improv, which is true of any class. All the things listed above in your statement are available to all classes and not just fighter. Fighter might typically be better at them than other classes, but they aren't unique to the fighter. Throw in a barbarian and you have someone with more options and could do all that stuff just as well. The trick here is that boring is referring to being mechanically boring, not personality boring. Just saying "Improv makes it not boring" doesn't work because that is a fundamental truth of the game all around, and doesn't really address the mechanical issues.

Except that powers are just basic attacks with another minor effect. A lot like the extended combat options.

Barbarians can't do that stuff as well because feats are what separate a fighter in older editions and it may be themes that do it in this one. It makes them focus on a specific area and it makes them excel (Improved Shield Bash, Weapon Focus, Improved Trip, etc. etc.). Mechanically being able to sunder, shield bash, bull rush, etc. isn't boring. "Other classes can do it too" isn't a valid argument because a wizard or sorcerer starts running into melee and bull rushing and shield basing is an idiot. It's not a viable option for a character who plays smart and plans on living for longer than a couple encounters.

It makes sense that any given person should be able to attempt basic physical tasks of any sort. Effectively that's all the fighter powers generally amount to in 4E, just pointing out that he's better at them.

epy346 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

epy346 wrote: Bull rushing, shield bashing, throwing barrels at being are all effectively attacks, just different ways to go about them.

Except improv is role playing. The description given was that it wasn't mechanically boring because you could do improv, which is true of any class. All the things listed above in your statement are available to all classes and not just fighter. Fighter might typically be better at them than other classes, but they aren't unique to the fighter. Throw in a barbarian and you have someone with more options and could do all that stuff just as well. The trick here is that boring is referring to being mechanically boring, not personality boring. Just saying "Improv makes it not boring" doesn't work because that is a fundamental truth of the game all around, and doesn't really address the mechanical issues.

Except that powers are just basic attacks with another minor effect. A lot like the extended combat options.

Except they aren't just minor effects, and they aren't like combat options, they were combat options. Not that it matters because in the play test the fighter has neither.

A fighter that doesn't invest his entire life savings into STR (going for a 16 instead of an 18) to try and be a character that is more than just STR, STR EVERYWHERE, can easily see a Rogue or Cleric be just as good at universal character options as the Fighter is and yet the Fighter will never be as good at healing and buffing the party as a cleric or as good at skill tricks as a Rogue. The Fighter should be to melee combat what a Rogue is to Skills, mechanically. As it is they aren't mechanically very interesting. I hope that this is because it is a) a playtest and b) low level. To completely throw away everything they learned about giving Fighters more options from 4th would be ill-considered and go against the statements they have made about making the game appeal to fans of all editions.