D&D Next playtest rules. Your thoughts? - Page 7 - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


D&D Next playtest rules. Your thoughts?

   
I haven't had a chance to playtest the last couple of packets so I don't know personally how well they stand up. From my experiences so far, I do like what they've done (aside from monsters being a bit too weak). What I'm not particularly excited about are the announcements for the druid and ranger. Personally, giving the druid healing ability that matches the cleric could potentially make the cleric all but obsolete were it not for the turn undead ability (this is my personal thoughts, not an closed-end observation). As for the ranger, spells starter levels could potentiallly make the class a bit too powerful in my opinion.

However, I'm not griping. Some may agree and some may not. In the end, it is D&D Next, not OD&D or AD&D. However, they have borrowed much from the old-school additions and really given the new system some pizzazz and I'm still looking forward to seeing the final end results when it's released!

Wait, scaling damage and multiple attacks? And they were worried that characters were doing too much damage previously? I would have thought those were exclusive options unless you want absurd amounts of damage at high levels. I'll have to wait until I get back from vacation to take a look at the actual rules, but I'm not really liking the sound of the change to tactical dice/martial damage dice/whatever, mostly because it sounds like they'd have to rewrite a big chunk of the rogue class as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mercutio361 View Post
What I'm not particularly excited about are the announcements for the druid and ranger. Personally, giving the druid healing ability that matches the cleric could potentially make the cleric all but obsolete were it not for the turn undead ability (this is my personal thoughts, not an closed-end observation). As for the ranger, spells starter levels could potentiallly make the class a bit too powerful in my opinion.
I haven't had a chance to read what they've done yet, but up until 4th edition I think, Druids have always been able to cast some healing, and rangers could cast spells (usually simple stuff like Pass Without Trace).

Actually, way back in the day, in AD&D 1e, rangers got limited druidic and arcane casting abilities at 8th level. 2nd ed dropped arcane spells and limited them to plant and animal sphere priest spells. 3rd edition gave them their own spell list, which is likely to be the way they'll be handled in Next (I haven't had time to look at the rules yet) especially with casting moved to level 1. I doubt they're going to be particularly overpowered, getting neither an extensive spell list or a wide variety of combat maneuvers. I could be wrong of course.

As for druid vs cleric, I have no problem at all with druids healing as well as clerics. The cleric has advantages in physical combat due to heavier armor (though high level shaper druids can probably match or even exceed that) while possibly (depending on build) retaining some excellent combat spells as well (though the caster druid might beat them out there). I expect clerics to remain potent choices using a mix of martial and magical talent for combat, I'd also expect them to excel at party buffing, typically not a druids strong point in previous editions. Druids might be a better choice for 'selfish' characters (not a value judgement, simply a useful term for a playstyle that emphasizes personal power over the ability to synergize with the party), while the cleric will do better at a more party oriented role.

I just looked at the new rules for my monk...he's significantly impacted by the rule changes. Gone is flurry of blows...I'll miss you! Monks needed a change though; they were way too powerful.

Quote:
Druids have always been able to cast some healing, and rangers could cast spells (usually simple stuff like Pass Without Trace).
They have, I agree. However, they're healing ability has always been limited compared to the Cleric for whom being a healer is par for the course for a holy man. As for rangers, yes they've always gotten spells, but usually had to reach a certain level before being granted them. Sort of a 'proving ground' before being entrusted with magical powers.

I was always hoping they would drop subFighter spells into just specialized spell-like abilities. Simple, direct things a paladin or ranger would use. Consecrate, pass without trace, divine favor, chameleon, etc. I like to leave the real magic to casters.

Shadeus, when you say that monks were too powerful...were you serious? I've heard people say a lot of things about monks, but too powerful - especially the 3.5 version of the class - isn't one of them. In Pathfinder, they can hold their own, but at low-levels in 3rd edition, monks are wildly underpowered. If you take a monk from 3.5 and pair it with a druid, you'll get a quick view of how poor character balance looks in real life

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlinmc View Post
Shadeus, when you say that monks were too powerful...were you serious? I've heard people say a lot of things about monks, but too powerful - especially the 3.5 version of the class - isn't one of them. In Pathfinder, they can hold their own, but at low-levels in 3rd edition, monks are wildly underpowered. If you take a monk from 3.5 and pair it with a druid, you'll get a quick view of how poor character balance looks in real life
Yeah they were horribly broken in the previous test package, extremely overpowered.

Quote:
4th Edition's biggest flaw was that they made every class the same.
Disclaimer. I'm not trying to start up a complaint or edition war here. Or looking for feedback. Just voicing my thoughts and opinions ramblingly. You know, I will never really got this complaint about 4e. "I throw fireballs that hurt more when I get hit back" versus "I'm awesome at backstabbing and swashbuckling" versus Drizzt-style blade dance all feel different to me. But this is neither here, nor there, and totally unimportant.

This is what's important to me:

The one thing that I found I was really attracted to with the playtest? The races. Yes, I know that, right now, they're very basic, tolken-esk options. But I really like how they're designed now. It feels like you get a reward for playing to the archetype, rather than some odd, unused proficencies that never came up in play. Yes, my dear high elves, I'm looking at you and your longsword proficiency from editions of old. I'm not giving you to my wizard when I want to cast spells, and I get you from my class when I want to get up close and personal.

And, oh! The the way which we can add new subraces! Shiny! I'm tempted to slip in a drow subrace for PCs using the system. Quick, easy, painless. It also makes it super easy to shift to other settings, as well- replacing the current ones from Greyhawk (I'm assuming base game is in Greyhawk) in the five elves (drow, sun, moon, wood, wild) from Faerun is a simple matter, or three or four different cultures in Eberron (Undying, Dragonmarked, mercenary, Vol). I find its a rather elegant system.

I'm looking forward to see how they handle the Next version of tieflings - 2e had a wild chart of options to chose from (thank you, Planescape!). 3.x, the version many are familiar with, with the ever popular fiendish rogue (anyone remember Neeshka?). And our 4e incarnation, with a new history, intimidating presence, favored weapons, and firey wrath. Three wildly different incarnations that don't match up. I'll be interesting to see how much of each filters down. Maybe they'll make a few subraces for each incarnation? One with sneaky darkness, one with firey wrath, one with charming powers? Hey, most tieflings in pre-4e were the children of succubi and incubi.


In case you can't tell, I'm a huge fan of the race. One of my favorite things to do is focus on racial feats and classes. I am told that, back in the early days of the game, your race was your class - the dwarf was always a warrior, the elf a swordmage/arcane archer. Don't know how true that is, but no matter. In my opinion, the game swung the opposite way - where race progressively failed to matter in place of class. I like seeing both matter, where being an elf has a distinct effect on your fighter as opposed to an agile human.

To me, it feels like they're moving in the right direction. Though, still not a fan of how they're handling humans. In Next or any previous editions. Why not actually pick a culture for humans instead of "dabbler in everything?"


----------------
On to classes! Well, looking at the paladin, where we have holy, dark, and nature knights, I'm left wondering a bit if we're going to have the same spread for cleric-like classes. Holy clerics with their healing, druids with nature powers, and necromantic priests like we did in 3e. Good, neutral, evil.

But, what about my paladin of the Neutral God of Knowledge? How does the green knight fit there? Can I even be a paladin of the God of Knowledge anymore? We can't do the the paladins of freedom or slaughter, either. All in all, I must say that I'm a bit leery of the warden - we have druids to cover the nature priest angle. That's kind of the first five words in their write up. So, it feels odd to group nature knights with the same as the holy and death knights - besides, isn't nature-guardian the ranger stick to begin with? And why can you be a lawful good warden, but not a lawful evil one? Nature's not inherently good. Actually, what is with the "lawful" requirement on some classes, but others have no such restrictions? Even the druid class has suggestions on alignment, but it doesn't actually -require- you to?

I'm finding the entire alignment thing to be annoyingly lopsided to the point I just want to ignore it.


Nice to see Mystra is making a return - she's getting a mention in the cleric's write up! Then again, Myrkul is dead, and he's mentioned too. Though, I wouldn't mind seeing Kelemvor getting knocked down and replaced again! Stupid new gods... stupid Cyric *wanders off mumbling*



Oh, and one more small thing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by svipdag View Post
Lol yeah, if they stuck with "D&D Next" I might need to boycott it out of allergy to stupid names. I mean, it immediately becomes dated as soon as it's released.
The Nintendo Wii was originally code named "Revolution" if memory serves. A pretty neat name, I thought. And then... Wii.

Names can go either way - it can get worse!




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-19 07:45:15am local time
Myth-Weavers Status