5e announced!

[Mortavius]

They didn't send an email; it's on their main page.

[Jester of the FoS]

Given they have everyone's e-mail, sending out a "we have update the playtest, please have a look" would probably be simple. They fail at communication, assuming everyone is checking out their website or visiting ENWorld.

So, yeah. Warlock and sorcerer. Plus it has an adventure now. Both not included as they were part of the playtests at GenCon.

[alhoon]

Actually the adventure is good, although it needs a bit more work IMO from the DM to bring it to light, with more descriptions of places and NPCs.

The warlock is...
That guy seriously fails PChecks as he progresses in levels.
Level 1, you get a wart. You also get advantage (2/day till 5th lvl) to charisma checks when speaking to creatures with less HP than you.
Level 5 you get a web of thin white scars on your skin (OR 2 anyone?). You also get the nifty ability to use a feystep like a 4th edition Eladrin. (Feystep or charisma advantage a total of 2/day)
You can use feystep or advantage to charisma checks a total of 2/day.

Personally, for Ravenloft I would say get rid of the class and use a modified version of the various abilities and penalties as the steps. Because getting scars and feystep seems "Meh" for a terrortrack.

[Mortavius]

The problem alhoon, is one of balance.

If they impose an actual game mechanic penalty to these bonuses, then to balance it, the ability that they get has to be more powerful than other classes. After all, a Cleric isn't penalized when he gets more spells to cast.

Why would someone play a Warlock if when they got abilities that were on the same raw power scale of the other characters, but they got a hard and fast game mechanic penalty to go with it? The only conceivable answer to that, is simply if the player wants the role-playing challenge, or just loves the character theme more than the numbers.

Personally, I approve of what they've done. The abilities the warlock gets are in line with the other classes, more or less, and the description is all there, to allow some great role-playing opportunities without actually saying "You get a -1 to Charisma" or something along those lines.

I love the idea of the warlock class (as you can probably tell) and I can see tons of RP potential around it. And I value that more than just saying to the player, you get a penalty here. Instead, it forces the player to think "What will people think of me with these scars? What do I need to do? What lengths should I go to, to conceal this?" I find too often, if you tell a player "You have X penalty because of this" then they don't necessarily try to do anything about it. They've already got the penalty. They're already starting in the hole, so to speak. They have to expend effort just to get to ground level, and they're not sure what they have to do. And if they fail, they still have the penalty. If you tell the player, "You don't have a penalty right now, but depending on what you do and who you interact with, you might get one" then they're not starting in the hole. They don't have the penalty yet. They can take precautions to make sure they don't ever get the penalty, and they have to consider what those might be, but from a neutral place, not a place of punishment (i.e., with the penalty already in place).

Given they have everyone's e-mail, sending out a "we have update the playtest, please have a look" would probably be simple. They fail at communication, assuming everyone is checking out their website or visiting ENWorld.

Well, I guess it's a good thing then that I was here to let everyone know.

[alhoon]

Good point there Mortavius. A hard and fast "-1 to charisma checks" doesn't apply in all situations and as you said, people would say "Oh well, I have a -1" instead of covering their scars with make-up or something. Also why the heck would a treant or centaur care if you have scars in your face?

IMO they should add a reminder for the DM that those curses may apply hidrances to some checks "like a small penalty to charisma checks to persuade an innkeeper to trust you with his secrets while they could provide a bonus to intimidate a group of goblins"


PS. I also like the warlock class, seems to Ravenlofty. So Ravenlofty that the same mechanic should be used for Powers checks IMO as I suggested earlier. At least the first couple of steps.

[Ocule]

From having played both 4e and the 5e playtest i think that 5e will be much more compatible with ravenloft than 4th. Im doing pathfinder right now waiting for 5e to be fully released but since they basically remade 2nd edition....Honestly it looks more like this is their true step forward. If you look at the progression from D&D, to AD&D to 2nd ed AD&D, 3.0/3.5/4.0 is a completely different game. I tried with the conversions on 4e and between their superhuman pcs, and the general set up of the game I didnt like the feel.

5e with their modular approach will let you choose exactly which rules will be usable in their game if they continue on the path they are on. So putting a "Ravenloft Module" would be pretty easy especially since the approach in 2e is to have a basic, core system. A skeleton system no pun intended, and its up to you the dm to attach everything else as you see fit. For me I will be probably switching to 5e and (hope they release it soon) Spell points, mapless play, and tbh until ravenloft comes out, you can probably crack open a 2e ravenloft book for everything else. The character sheets are a bit wonkier than i thought they would be, just 6 stats, feats and whatever your class/background an theme give you. But yeah as far as ravenloft is concerned i think for D&D this will be the best edition to play it in. Nothing like back to basics approach.

[alhoon]

While I agree that 5e is closer to Ravenloft than 4th, I would say it's far FAR closer to 3rd edition than 2nd edition. Pathfinder soared up in sellings and they realised that 3rd edition sells better than 4e. So they re-master D&D to be close to 3e, but simpler.

As for the modularity... I don't have any expectations till I see it. So far we have a "there will be variants for healing in a long rest".
Personally I don't expect much modularity whatever they say. I believe that they will fail to deliver what I call modularity (i.e. something similar to the Unearthed arcana modularity) but hopefully they will present some interesting options.

[Mortavius]

I see 5E like alhoon; a simpler version of 3E that harkens closer to 2E with it's simplicity (and I don't use that term negatively).

However, what I like about 5E right now is they seem to have taken the things they got right about 3E (race/class restrictions, I'm looking at you) and kept them, while toning down the rules slightly. Not that 3E rules really bothered me much, but I'm looking forward to trying a simpler ruleset.

The modularity concept...I find kind of funny.

D&D has ALWAYS been modular. Players bought all kinds of optional books in every edition of the game, and DM's would allow this book or that, and outright disallow this book or that. Inevitably, some of those books had rules systems in them, so the DM was effectively allowing certain rules sets and not others, thus creating a modular approach to the game. I suppose maybe they are designing 5E with that modularity much more in focus, and maybe that will influence things, but like alhoon, I'm kind of just waiting to see what happens. I do like what I see of 5E right now though.

[alhoon]

I read the first thing I don't like in the descriptions of the ogre/troll/ogremagi

We're back in the 2e rediculousness of str 19 for hill giants and 25 for storm giants.

Riiiight. Because a giant that weights 6tons (like an elephant) would have just a +7 to hit/damage rolls.
And of course, he will barely be able to carry his axe.

[Jester of the FoS]

D&D has ALWAYS been modular. Players bought all kinds of optional books in every edition of the game, and DM's would allow this book or that, and outright disallow this book or that. Inevitably, some of those books had rules systems in them, so the DM was effectively allowing certain rules sets and not others, thus creating a modular approach to the game. I suppose maybe they are designing 5E with that modularity much more in focus, and maybe that will influence things, but like alhoon, I'm kind of just waiting to see what happens. I do like what I see of 5E right now though.

4e wasn't very modular. The focus on modularity and optional rules is a return to that, a return to a much more hackable and customizable game.

[alhoon]

On 4e, it depends on how you played it. If you approached it with an "I'll change everything I don't like" it was modular. Of course, it wasn't built that way BUT it was balanced even with some hard liberties.
For example, as I've said many times, in 4E, I cut the hp of monsters by half so they would go down faster and considered them 2lvls less in XP worth. And I changed wizard to deal more damage so a wizard could be also a good striker.
And 4E worked as well, and as stupidly balanced as ever. Not a single hic-up or "WTF wizards are overpowered!".

[Mortavius]

4e wasn't very modular. The focus on modularity and optional rules is a return to that, a return to a much more hackable and customizable game.

I think that depends on how you look at it, Jester.

For example, I would say that almost every book in 4E besides the core three are extra, and thus, modular. You can take them or leave them. In this way, I think it's the same as every other edition.

However, if (as I suspect) you are referring to specific pieces within those books (i.e. I want to use the Barbarian but not any of the rest of the Primal power source), then I can see where you're coming from. Although I suspect that argument can be applied to previous editions of the game as well, to some extent.

As mentioned, I was referring to whole books and not individual pieces, if that clarifies where I'm coming from.

[Jester of the FoS]

4e wasn't very modular. The focus on modularity and optional rules is a return to that, a return to a much more hackable and customizable game.

I think that depends on how you look at it, Jester.

For example, I would say that almost every book in 4E besides the core three are extra, and thus, modular. You can take them or leave them. In this way, I think it's the same as every other edition.

However, if (as I suspect) you are referring to specific pieces within those books (i.e. I want to use the Barbarian but not any of the rest of the Primal power source), then I can see where you're coming from. Although I suspect that argument can be applied to previous editions of the game as well, to some extent.

As mentioned, I was referring to whole books and not individual pieces, if that clarifies where I'm coming from.

The position of WotC was that it was Core and non-optional. And even things like the campaign settings were assumptions.

But, more tellingly, how many optional rules can you name? How many variant rules? How easy is it to modify the rules for other setting or non-standard play styles?

[alhoon]

In 4E it was easier to alter the rules than 3E I think. It's just that the game was so board-gamish that we didn't bother.
It's very easy to change the rules for monopoly to add a variant that if 2 pawns are in the same square, they do battle with pistols and one ends up in hospital. Or add cars. It's just that monopoly is a board game so you play by the rules in the box.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

It's just that monopoly is a board game so you play by the rules in the box.

Tell that to the people that insist on putting $500 on free parking and don't know about the auction for unbought properties.