5e announced!

[Zilfer]

I did the survey unforunately, on my phone.... so it was a little hard to do and over lunch break so i was a little rushed.

Anyways I think it went well though I didn't have time to leave comments.

[alhoon]

You did that survey over the phone? It took me well over 20 mins and I was in my desktop.
Chosing spells from a huge list that I consider iconic was a hard procedure for me.

[Zilfer]

Yeah.... Again i did it in 20 minutes but it was a bit rushed. xD I should have just waited to take it later. xD

[alhoon]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120723

They show here some changes. HP and damage go down considerably. Abilities will be also in a more narrow scale. We're back at the redicusly low strength of most creatures seen in 2nd edition.
BTW, did you miss the 4d8+1 hp of the ogre for example? The minotaur has 10d10+2 hp. Con modifier for monsters doesn't add per level. It adds once. If you want more hp, add more HD, since they don't affect attacks in most cases. Meh... I can't say I like it, but I can live with it.

Now Minotaur specific things:
"Keen Senses: This creature has a +5 bonus to all checks to detect hidden creatures, and the minimum of its d20 die roll on such checks is a 10."
So... why not just give advantage on perception? Yeah, with advantage you can still get two 7s and it seems the Minotaur can't get a less than 15 on spotting hidden creatures, which is better than advantage.
But come on... it's a +5 bonus. That's mostly... advantage. Perhaps a +3 (from 16 wisdom) with advantage would be equal and I wouldn't have to memorize new rules.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I'm not against rules like "this monster can always get 10 on this roll" or "+5 to X d20 roll" instead of advantage.
It just seems weird to go this trouble for a minotaur. They're trash monsters after all.

"Rage +5/5: This creature can choose to take disadvantage on a melee attack to gain +5 damage. If that attack misses but either die roll was 10 or higher, the attack is instead a glancing blow that deals 5 damage. The attack still counts as a miss for determining other special effects or abilities."
Awesome. That's a very, very good use of the disadvantage rules.

And then, there's goring charge that's exactly what you would expect from a minotaur: Charge with the horns for increased damage and may drop enemy prone.

[Jester of the FoS]

Remember this conversation a while back:

It's more likely problems with the uncaring management that does not get the game and does not care for its fans. Upper WotC management really does seem like archetypal souless suits, un-creative people working for a creative company.
Check out some of the interviews CEO Greg Leeds has done with ICv2. He has no passion for the game.
There's probably endless hurdles, managing when they want the game out, how they want it released, dealing with continual requests from above, and the like.

I just googled "Greg Leeds ICv2" and read the two part interview from 2008. I didn't get that feeling at all. I mean, yeah, he's a business guy, and it shows, and he's talking business, where the business happens to be games. But he knows a lot more details about the products than I'd expect a CEO to know. It's kinda dry business-speak, but he's a CEO. That's the nature of the beast. Or is it another interview you meant?

I dunno, maybe I'm biased, because I work for a very large corporation and I'm used to such speak from CEO's. But I have NEVER heard a CEO admit stuff like "product X is not doing well" unless they'd already cancelled it.
Yeah, that's somewhat disingenuous. But I still don't read it as "no passion for the game." He might have the passion, he might not. But I guarantee he doesn't have passion for every product Hasbro sells. Nor would I expect him to. If he loves D&D, Elefun, My Little Pony, Battleship, Dora, Lite-Brite, and Risk all equally, he's an odd person indeed. But as CEO he should be hyping all of them, all the time.

It's one thing to say a product is doing poorly, it's another to say it's doing well when it's not. He could have remained silent or phrased it differently. Especially when there's already rumours sales are not strong.
It means he's the type of CEO who will lie blatantly about the health of the game. This doesn't engender trust.

But he's not the CEO of Hasbro, he's the CEO of WotC which is just an affliate of Hasbro. Hasbro has its own toys and products to manage. He's the CEO of WotC and all of the related games, but when you google his name you see reference after reference associate with MtG. D&D seems secondary. Which is the thing, Magic seems to be his baby. D&D just seems like the brand his former boss aquired and now he has to manage.

Ah... I hadn't realized he was just CEO of WotC. that's a bit of a different story in terms of what I'd expect him to know about D&D. But still, I only get "CEO-speak" out of that interview, and I wouldn't expect anything else, regardless of his passion for the game or lack thereof. Especially if D&D was in trouble (which we now know it was), it's imperative for the CEO not to make it seem so. He has a responsibility to his board and stockholders (or maybe the board and stockholders of the parent company) to do so.

So, while discussing something semi-related on ENWorld someone schooled me on WotC CEO Greg Leeds which led me to an ICv2 article from 2008 where he assumed the presidency. Mr. Leeds was formerly a marketing manager for Hasbro and the general manager of the Boys Toys division.
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12229.html
http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profil ... id=profile

While he was "promoted" from general manager to CEO this seems like a demotion, being shuffled from the prestigious "Boys Division" of Hasbro to some small under-performing subsidiary. It seems like Hasbro dumped him figuring he'd save the brands and prove himself or he wouldn't do any harm there. He really does have no passion for the game, because he's not really a player: it's just a job for him!

[alhoon]

IMO general manager to CEO is a demotion only if you get less money.

[Jester of the FoS]

IMO general manager to CEO is a demotion only if you get less money.

The boys division of Hasbro is in charge of brands such as Transformers, GIJoe, and many of the licences properties, such as Marvel heroes (read: Avengers and Spider-man).
He also became CEO of Wizards opposed to one of the Name subsidiaries of Hasbro such as Tonka, Milton Bradley, Parker Brothers, Playskool, and Kenner. WotC is small potatoes in comparison.

It does explain some of the WotC attitude shift since 2008, the silence and reliance on buzz-words and talking points. The company is run by a marketing dude. And as he's a marketing guy with experience running toy companies and not publishing/book companies some of the subtleties of the business might escape him.

[alhoon]

It certainly explains why 4E was a board game instead of an RPG.

[alhoon]

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20120730

They toy with a new mechanic for Fighters. Soooomewhat similar with the per-encounter powers of Tome of 9 swords.

The fighter gets some extra dice (for example 1d4 at 1st lvl and 2d6 at 5th lvl) and can spend them in various ways. The uninteresting way that all fighters can choose is: Spend them on a damage roll for extra damage.
Then it goes by type of fighter. Defensive fighters may use them to reduce damage, Guardian fighters may give up dice to save an ally from hit etc.

I actually like it, but I have to see how it will be implemented.
For example if it goes as they say, with the dice replentished each round, I will scream "unfair" as they make the fighter too powerful IMO. A 5th lvl fighter that deals 2d6 extra damage is ... too much.

Yeah, I am the one that sent them "I wish damage is scaled with levels for fighters, as well as spellcasters. Spellcasters get better spells to deal damage. What about the fighters?"
But I certainly didn't expect a whole 2d6 bonus/turn, or 2d6 damage reduction...

I would prefer 1d6 at 5th lvl each round or 3d6 at the start of the encounter, and you can spend 1die/round.

[Jester of the FoS]

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20120730

They toy with a new mechanic for Fighters. Soooomewhat similar with the per-encounter powers of Tome of 9 swords.

The fighter gets some extra dice (for example 1d4 at 1st lvl and 2d6 at 5th lvl) and can spend them in various ways. The uninteresting way that all fighters can choose is: Spend them on a damage roll for extra damage.
Then it goes by type of fighter. Defensive fighters may use them to reduce damage, Guardian fighters may give up dice to save an ally from hit etc.

I actually like it, but I have to see how it will be implemented.
For example if it goes as they say, with the dice replentished each round, I will scream "unfair" as they make the fighter too powerful IMO. A 5th lvl fighter that deals 2d6 extra damage is ... too much.

Yeah, I am the one that sent them "I wish damage is scaled with levels for fighters, as well as spellcasters. Spellcasters get better spells to deal damage. What about the fighters?"
But I certainly didn't expect a whole 2d6 bonus/turn, or 2d6 damage reduction...

I would prefer 1d6 at 5th lvl each round or 3d6 at the start of the encounter, and you can spend 1die/round.

It does sound like it's per round. But I doubt they're just adding that to fighters. Likely they're replacing former static bonus with the dice. Damage spikes are the big benefit to leveling up.

[alhoon]

They clearly said it's for fighters though.

[Jester of the FoS]

They clearly said it's for fighters though.

Sorry, I meant that I doubted they were just adding it to fighters... without adjusting for the increase. Not just adding it.

[alhoon]

New playtest from Wotc aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I have my sis to test it with!

EDIT:
From reading it, not playing it:
I can say I like what I see so far. Many of my problems have been addressed. The results are very satifsying, i.e. the changes are mostly to the better. Some of my problems have disappeared while others have improved manyfold.
OK, fighter isn't balanced with all these extra goodies, but he seems awesome.

The long version:
- Advantage/disadvantage is still used too much IMO, but not annoyingly so. A couple of things are too much IMO but mostly it seems OK now.
- Some trademark spells have returned and those that were in, are now in better form mostly.
- I can't say I see fighter with their huge hitroll bonuses and tons of damage as balanced, but their mechanics and abilities are very interesting.
- Rogues have been improved
- Clerics/wizards are OK, although IMO Cleric should have the rogue's attack roll progression
- The specialties, for example, the "how to become a darklord by level 5" spec i.e. necromancer. That guy takes a feat at 1st lvl that allows him to capture the fleeting life energies of dying creatures, make them into spirits that hover near him and consume them to give his enemies disadvantage against his spells. At 3rd lvl he gets another feat that allows him to ... animate dead.
- Some feats are more powerful than others. Yeah, I know. Shocking eh?
- For some reason, undead lore is DIFFERENT from religion AND from forbidden lore.


Anyway, I couldn't understand how you pick feats. Do you pick a specialty and pick the feats from that list only? Do you choose feats from multiple specialties? Is there a different tree for "generic" feats and when you gain a feat you either take a generic one or a specialty one?

[Mortavius]

There has been an update to the 5E play-test package. It has an adventure in it, and two new classes, the Sorcerer and Warlock.

I like both of them; the Sorcerer maintains his traditional spell casting versatility with the trade-off of slower progression, but also has a new mechanic where as he casts spells, his heritage (where he gets his power from) starts to overtake his humanity. This resets after a rest and his humanity can re-assert itself, but it's a cool mechanic.

The warlock looks very much like a combination of 3E & 4E, but emphasis is placed on the pact the Warlock makes, and it seems to be on a more individual level. Rather than making a Fey pact, you are making a Fey pact with the Venestra, the fey of beauty. This gives you specialized abilities, but the patron does not just give, it also takes. In the aforementioned example, Venestra takes some of your beauty, making you uglier as she grants you more favors. This ugliness doesn't necessarily have game effects, but I see a lot of role-playing potential around it.

[alhoon]

So... we have our work cut out for us for Ravenloft 5e, right?

EDIT: I haven't received any such email...