DND next feedback

-Advantage is really strange to me, having to roll 2d20 is a really weird idea.
---as a positive, it does smooth over and speed up combat in a somewhat fun
way [you still get to roll dice, and it takes less time to calculate the result]
-The idea that you can create a core system and then mutate it to serve a certain
game will probably fail. [ex: they want to have two different levels of
healing/resting]
they can't please everyone.
Yes, you can have variations based on homebrew, but that shouldn't be in the
"core", cause then it's not a core...it's a bunch of separate pieces that are hard to
keep together. It becomes unclear and hard to figure out what the real rules are.
-Being able to save using ability scores only is interesting, but I realized it doesn't
allow you to specialize unless you have a feat that says "+1 to dex saves".
Doesn't that just have the same complexity [rather than making it easier]?
Also something to note, Odnd used the same system, instead of using reflex,
fortitude, or will. I'm starting to like the idea of not having those defenses as they
are needlessly confusing.
Spells/Abilities
-Guidance now only boost ability scores and not checks specifically, which seems
like a nerf to me.
-Read magic is a cantrip, but detect magic is now a level 1 spell...and it is weaker
due to the lack of rules on auras.
Here's the worst part, the scanning is nerfed from being 60 ft to 30 feet. I mean
sure, it is changed to 1 action instead of 3 rounds...but now the range is less than
half of what it was!
-There is still a Vancian [slot-based] vs non-vancian debate going on, but the
design team says that the battle is best handled by giving players options for
both...I agree.

Clerics and Healing [HP problems]

-Heal Minor Wounds has changed from a touch spell that heals 1 hp to a ranged
spell that heals anyone who is under 3 hp, and that just seems weird.
-WOTC can't decide how much they want healing to matter. Many people who like

4e got used to having healing surges as part of their character (I personally

disliked the idea).
...Now they have healing using a more classic hit dice recovery during rest in
Next.
-players who like 4e still want martial heroes like the Warlord/Marshall to show up
and heal them with what is called "martial/inspirational healing". I can see the
argument there and I actually think inspirational healing is kinda neat, but it's
getting so controversial that WOTC is deciding to make both options available as
"homerule" ideas/packages.
That's kind of cheap, not even sticking to one solid idea.
-Is the marshall/warlord going to be an "optional" class (his rules only work if this
inspirational healing is allowed anyway, unless they made it an optional feature?)
-The strange stuff comes in when HP becomes so abstract. Does it mean you
can both magically heal and inspire people to "heal" in the game (makes sense to
me, in a way), but the players can become confused
[https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130527]
-the new idea is essentially that resting in dungeons only recovers half HP, and
only a rest in a comfortable place can allow full recovery. I can agree with this.
-I also like the idea of adding fear and thirst into hp to reflect other settings like
ravenloft or dark sun.
-Spells are split between standard actions, bonus actions (quick spells), or rituals.
Generaly spells are faster, unless you need to cast a ritual, but I think even rituals
can be cast at a faster speed...not sure.
Feats
-M.M. (lead designer) has said that removing things like feats as being
mandatory or required
-they have also taken maneuver options (such as push or trip and ect.) and made
them focusable as feats.
Organization
-The newest rules for next are being packaged into the Gen-con Only adventure
called Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle. This means that people who don't go to
gen-con will not be able to "playtest" the latest rules.

Nevermind the fact that WOTC is already selling (on preorder) these adventure
modules. These rules (in the playtest packet we have now) are barely half
finished and still broken, and they are expecting people to already pay for
adventures featuring the beta rules?
It's not even like minecraft offering a closed beta...this is a "finished" product that
they are handing out to the cons, even though the game is actually closer to an
open beta stage.
-I'm not even sure if DND next will have a Core rulebook or use the same Three
Book structure as before, but I'm hoping they find a way to make a Core book
work.
-The newest murmurs seem to be telling me that DND next will have a very
similar feel to the DND Basic Set. Wizards needs to stop producing "Basic" sets.
They did it already with 4E (even though I liked it), but I'd rather they just release
one book/set.
Classes
-There is no option for a ranged/archer paladin and I actually think that would be
cool. the example was that you cannot use Smite in a ranged attack. Even if
multiclass was used, ranged smite would not be applied.
Though, in Book of Exalted Deeds (3.5) this is a feat option, so it can be done.
-The idea in the dnd next discussion says that the "Warlord" type class could be
opposed to "Bard" in the same way that "fighter" and "rouge" oppose.
in the example: the warlord is the fighter-like support class and the bard could be
a roguish supporter/debuffer.
.
Backgrounds/Specialties
-I actually like the idea of having this system baked into the core rules.
-Seems like it should be more of an optional idea honestly, with they way they
have presented it, but it should be in the first PHB for this game in my opinion.
-It reminds me of the Job system in Iron Kingdoms actually, and the devs should
do that. Jobs give feat recommendations, and/or exclusive feats and abilities. It's
already similar enough.
Levels

-This also ties into healing and the idea of Gritty/realistic games vs heroic [or
even epic/superhero level] games:
Should there be a tier system like 4e, or should level 1 be strong enough to be
considered "Heroic" with high HP and abilities or should level 1 be weak and
frail/vulnerable?
-The answer is up to what the dm wants, but the problem seems to be that
"heroic" starts at level 3, and some people have issues starting at level 3.
(-1) rule is to use a "level - 0" where players have a level similar to NPC or
commoner, and I think that kind of gameplay is interesting. to be a frail commoner
who truly does advance in the world. [for reference, level 0 needs 500 xp to level
up]
-Wizards seems to be hinting at a legacy system for higher levels, meaning that
higher level characters can own land, get cohorts, pass down hierlooms, and ect.
But how will this stack with things like Epic-level adventures?
----9/23/13
DNDNext is very confusing to me, since it seems like it's trying to be every other
game on the market based on the latest news update. It looks like they are trying
to make way too many optional rules packets that make the game seem like a
mess.
Optional Rules for the game include:
1.Tactical Combat based on 3rd and 4th edition
2. A "Dramatic" system that involves storytelling, seems very similar to a White
Wolf game.
3. Class Customization system that is very similar to an archetype in pathfinder or
the old class kits.
4.A Downtime system (with the same name used from Pathfinder and almost
exactly the same idea)
and from what I've played, the core game itself is very similar to a modernized
"basic" version of DND.
This whole game is turning into a swiss army knife instead of a compact and fun
package.
9/27/13
"Do you think well see another racial option for humans other
than the +1 to all ability scores or are people happy with the
+1 for the most part?

We definitely recognize that there is some dissatisfaction with this

expression of the human, and yet at the same time we know that it
does some really positive things for the game, including providing a
quick and easy option for character generation." SINCE, OF COURSE
GIVING +2 TO ONE STAT IS JUST SO COMPLEX AND IMPOSSIBLE, WE
HAVE TO BREAK THE GAME AND GIVE HUMANS +1 IN EVERY STAT.
HECK, WE COULD STILL NERF IT BY MAKING IT +1 TO ONE STAT, BUT
THAT WOULD FORCE PLAYERS TO ACTUALLY MAKE A CHOICE ABOUT
THE DIRECTION AND PRIORITY OF THIER CHARACTER INSTEAD OF IT
BEING QUCIK AND EASYTHAT'S SO HORRIBLE, RIGHT?
Emerikol supports my idea from last week here:
http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-generaldiscussion/threads/3933416
9/19 packet review
Races: It seems like they took one popular race from each major
setting and stuffed them in. I can't wait to play a drow right next to the
warforgedStoryline wise, how do you justify that?
Druid Update: The druid wild shape is being updated, but I'll have to
wait for the next playtest update to see it. This was confirmed on the Q
and A above.
Mage update: Scribe Scroll is removed? Why? Do I have to take it as a
feat/spell now? Scribe Scroll is a very useful and cool ability. Why
remove it?! Brew Potions as a bonus feat is removed too!
Monk update: something I like. Flurry of blows no longer uses the two
weapon fighting rules. I wish pathfinder could fix this also. However,
they changed the monk so that he has increasing unarmed damage,
but pathfinder already did this.
Spells
Summoning got nerfed, revised back to how it was in 2ed edition
instead of summoning by level like in 3rd, so it means wizards can
ONLY summon elements or demons/celestials (I think) as a 4-5th level
spell.
Since I'm running a 3rd ed campeign, I noticed that Mount was
removed and only Phantom Steed remains (3rd level).
Some of the new spells are awesome, like firebolt (though they
removed spark) or Thunderwave! The spells that were removed are
annoying, but most of the added spells are actually cool.

Endure Elements is removed, making survival a bit harder (think that's

better).
http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2h27zr/endure_elements/
As Karl H. said, high casting atributes no longer give you bonus spells,
just better "to hit" and DCs.
Based on reddit posts, all spells are now treated like the way sorcerers
used to cast. So you can now "multicast" any spell you have prepared
as long as you have the slots for it. Used spells do not disapear. This is
pretty much how I've run magic casting since pathfinder anyway.
Buffs also got nerfed in this edition as the rules state you can only
really have one up at one time, you can't cast 5 buff spells on someone
at once now and have them all stack like in 3.5. I really like this
change, even though we never got high level enough for it to matter.
Others
In the final version, two weapon fighting is very easy (no penalty, no
feat needed, just no bonus to damage) as well as using improvised
weapons (no penalty, and treated as equivelent weapons regarding
proficency. Meaning they can get bonuses to a hunk of wood if they are
proficent with clubs).
Also, non-lethal (melee, as per RAW, but I'd allow ranged) attacks have
been changed to "free" like above, no penalty. This is great for
characters who strive to be good or just want to not kill.
Sorcer seems a lot less interesting since there are only two types. Most
other classes would be fine with this, but the sorcerer has so many
possible bloodlines given in pathfinder, it seems like those two choices
really ruin you character-wise.
Disarming is a 2ed level fighter ability only, this makes me mad since I
love disarming with rouges. Then again, this is only rules as written
and there are no called shots to the hand avalible yet.
Magic items are much more limited and rare, and magic items are
heavily limited or nerfed. Stats are capped at 20. So effectively, magic
is much more special, and the decreased magic attempts to prevent a
"monty haul" game.
Multiple Attacks got very nerfed. As far as I know, players are limited to
a maximum of two attacks no matter what. Monsters no longer have
natural attacks, they either have Multiattack to do multiple attacks or
they only have one weapon. As someone who likes to mod monsters

and monster PCs, this seriously makes them stronger! So at a certain

level monsters just get multiple attacks at no penalty? Only top tier
monsters even get to make 3 attacks. In comparison, if you look at
Pathfinder a ranger could get anywhere from 4-8 attacks at top tier,
maybe more. So, due to the simplified style...it's either you have
Multiattack or not. You can't make secondary attacks at a penalty (as a
monster).
I just noticed today that there is no attack of oppertunity for casting in
melee. Sure, you take disadvantage for ranged attacks (including
spells) in melee, but considering casters use casting stat as the
modifer, it's curbed a bit. There's also no AO for grappling either, but I
do like this rules change as it makes grappling easier and faster, plus
makes melee characters better.
Another thing that dawned on me was that most abilities from classes
are sort of 4e style in that they are refreshed by Short and Long rests.
Id love to go out of my way just to reinvent how these refreshes work
or add MORE flavor to these refreshes.