Highlights:  Bard class included.  Same with dragonborn, tiefling, warforged, kender, and drow races.  Skills are back.  Multiclassing rules.  Proficiency replaces...well...a lot.

Ok, now into more detail

Bard Class: like most versions, a hybrid caster who can also play instruments to bolster allies or charm people (there are two specialties: War and Wit).  War is focuses on helping allies, Wit is focused on charming

Races: I won't be playing any of them, but I can see why they'd want to include some peoples' favorite.  None of them seem way overpowered.  Maybe dragonborn at low levels, but that might be it.

Multiclassing: Boy, are some people throwing a shit fit about this.  Most notably that you need to have a min stat before multiclassing.  Harkens back to AD&D.  No longer can you just have a F2/C4/R1/Brb5 character.  Well, I suppose you could, but it's unlikely.  For example, if you start as a different class and want to be a fighter?  You need a min STR 15.  I love it.  It just makes way more sense, and they are explicit as to why (if you're taking the fast track instead of training like a level 1 character, you need to have an exceptional attribute).  But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants.

Now the big one.  Proficiency.  In a nutshell, each class has a proficiency bonus that goes up with level.  Anything you're proficient in gains that bonus.  Proficient in martial weapons as a fighter?  You get that bonus to all attacks.  Proficient in thieves tools?  You get the bonus whenever using them.  Proficient in certain saving throws (like dodging, etc)?  You get your bonus.  Proficient in the perform skill?  You guessed it.  Proficiency bonuses range from +1 to +6 at level 20.  Although initially skeptical, I think I'm warming to the idea.  It's a very simple, singular mechanic that handles a lot of things.  I'm all for things making the game simpler.

For example:  Fighters are proficient in all armor and shields (although you don't get your prof bonus to AC), simple and martial weapons, mounts, strength and con saving throws, and one skill of acrobatics, athletics, or intimidation.  For all of those things (except AC), you add your prof bonus.  Need to  make a CON saving throw and you're level 5?  you get an additional +2 bonus in addition to whatever your Con bonus is.

Speaking of fighters, all fighters and subclasses (ranger and paladin) can choose a fighting style at level one: archery, defense, great weapon, protection, or two-weapon fighting.  They are important, but not huge benefits to each.  Think of it like specialization from AD&D.  Basically it means not all rangers have to be 2-weapon fighting Drizzt clones.

Also speaking of fighters, gone is the second wind ability where you can heal 1/2 your hit points.  Now it's more of a true second wind or adrenaline surge.  You add 1d6+level to your HP as temp HP that expire in 5 minutes.

QuoteNow the big one. Proficiency. In a nutshell, each class has a proficiency bonus that goes up with level. Anything you're proficient in gains that bonus. Proficient in martial weapons as a fighter? You get that bonus to all attacks. Proficient in thieves tools? You get the bonus whenever using them. Proficient in certain saving throws (like dodging, etc)? You get your bonus. Proficient in the perform skill? You guessed it. Proficiency bonuses range from +1 to +6 at level 20. Although initially skeptical, I think I'm warming to the idea. It's a very simple, singular mechanic that handles a lot of things. I'm all for things making the game simpler.

Very interesting.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;692312Very interesting.

From a rather broad observation, it comes down to:

Action = roll plus prof bonus + attribute bonus, and compare vs. DC value

And that's it.  you don't have this list of situational modifiers like a "to hit" chart, skill bonus, feat bonus, specialization bonus, etc.  And it's the same mechanic for every class, and for every action.  You don't have some use % dice while others use the d20 for instance.

They should call it the "the last laugh playtest packet."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692311Multiclassing: Boy, are some people throwing a shit fit about this.  Most notably that you need to have a min stat before multiclassing.  Harkens back to AD&D.  No longer can you just have a F2/C4/R1/Brb5 character.  Well, I suppose you could, but it's unlikely.  For example, if you start as a different class and want to be a fighter?  You need a min STR 15.  I love it.  It just makes way more sense, and they are explicit as to why (if you're taking the fast track instead of training like a level 1 character, you need to have an exceptional attribute).  But man, is the char op crowd absolutely pissing their pants.

Yeah that won't stop charopers/minmaxers, it will only hurt non-charopers/min-maxers (like me) who have some sort of character concept in mind.  

Why?

Random ability generation is default. 4d6 drop lowest, trade 2 points to gain 1 point in another ability appears to be still happening. The last 3rd edition game I played with people, that I don't usually play with, I realized after a couple sessions, that everyone but me had no abilities scores below 14, apparently they all rolled their ability scores at home and brought their characters with them to game. I had used the point buy system myself.

The only solution to stop charopers/min-maxers, one that really works, has been a strong GM/DM.  It's been the same since the 1970s.

Further I don't see how it makes "more sense."  

Quoteif you're taking the fast track instead of training like a level 1 character, you need to have an exceptional attribute

That last statement just doesn't make any sense at all. I'm a level 20 wizard with a 12 intelligence, check out my spell book.  I'm a level 20 fighter with a 14 intelligence but I never had what it took to cast one arcane spell. Make sense? nope.

People are just going to ignore what they don't like anyway. Isn't that the one of the selling points of a soggy system (reduced-rules) that people can make up their own rules. I think we will see people just ignoring rules they don't like, like they did with racial maximums and of course ability minimums in AD&D.  If a rule is made and it is purely for meta-game considerations like game balance, then they tend to get vetoed out in favor of more realistic (making more sense) rules, especially if those rules get in the way of what they want to do.

So no, charopers/min-maxers will be fine.  People who play by the rules, or at least the spirit of rules at least, will be hampered a bit though.

If only there were some way to increase your stats as you level...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;692311Fighters are proficient in all armor and shields (although you don't get your prof bonus to AC)

It's odd that Fighters don't learn how to defend themselves better. A 1st level fighter and 10th level fighter wearing the same gear having the same ability to avoid blows has always seemed odd to me.

Quote from: Spinachcat;692340It's odd that Fighters don't learn how to defend themselves better. A 1st level fighter and 10th level fighter wearing the same gear having the same ability to avoid blows has always seemed odd to me.

Hit points represent that.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692335People are just going to ignore what they don't like anyway. Isn't that the one of the selling points of a soggy system (reduced-rules) that people can make up their own rules. I think we will see people just ignoring rules they don't like, like they did with racial maximums and of course ability minimums in AD&D.  If a rule is made and it is purely for meta-game considerations like game balance, then they tend to get vetoed out in favor of more realistic (making more sense) rules, especially if those rules get in the way of what they want to do.

So no, charopers/min-maxers will be fine.  People who play by the rules, or at least the spirit of rules at least, will be hampered a bit though.

At the table, you're right. But it should stop a lot of the endless charop threads on boards with the comment "that's not RAW". Which is an improvement, at least.

ETA: also, wasn't a 15 prime requisite one of the rules for dual classing back in 1e or 2e? Blast from the past!

Quote from: JonWake;692342Hit points represent that.

Just not very well whereas a monk gets improved AC through training and gains far fewer HP.
So you have 2 incongruous ways of getting the same effect.

And of course touch attacks etc particularly relevant to fighters in a duel to first blood situation.

AC bonus improving 1 per 2 levels for fighters seems like a good houserule to me.

For fun, I started creating hypothetical multi-classed characters and realized something.  The real killer for multi-classing IS NOT minimum ability scores at all, it's the fact that you never get ability score improvements or feats if you do. For example, if you made a 3rd level mage, 3rd level fighter, 3rd level cleric, you would never hit 4th in any of those classes thus never get your ability score improvement or feat.  All though you are a 9th level character, you don't receive an ability improvement unless a single class hits 4th level, 8th level, 12th level, etc.  

That's pretty much a total killer for multi-classing, I don't think there will be many multi-classed characters by players with game mastery (understanding of the rules). I honestly think they should just remove multi-classing as an option for now. I don't think it's a bad thing really, if they want to be the anti-multi-classing edition (in reaction to previous editions), that's fine, but just say so and remove it instead of making it a trap option for newbies.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692346I don't think there will be many multi-classed characters by players with game mastery (understanding of the rules).

Boo FUCKIN hoo.

Screw the game mastery charop twinks.

Quote from: The Ent;692351Boo FUCKIN hoo.

Screw the game mastery charop twinks.

Indeed they did screw them. I would rather they just make it obvious though, then to hide their fuck you message.  

When I opened the 4th edition player's handbook, I got the message immediately, page after page was "fuck you asshole."  Just make it clear, I say.

Quote from: hamstertamer;692356Indeed they did screw them. I would rather they just make it obvious though, then to hide their fuck you message.  

When I opened the 4th edition player's handbook, I got the message immediately, page after page was "fuck you asshole."  Just make it clear, I say.

Haha, I know what you mean. :rotfl:
I got the message pretty quick when reading 4e too (whereas the messages I got from 3e were mixed. :mad: But then 3e was weird that way, its actual nature doesn't become obvious until after you've been playing it for a while...).

Quote from: hamstertamer;692335Yeah that won't stop charopers/minmaxers, it will only hurt non-charopers/min-maxers (like me) who have some sort of character concept in mind.  

Why?

Random ability generation is default. 4d6 drop lowest, trade 2 points to gain 1 point in another ability appears to be still happening. The last 3rd edition game I played with people, that I don't usually play with, I realized after a couple sessions, that everyone but me had no abilities scores below 14, apparently they all rolled their ability scores at home and brought their characters with them to game. I had used the point buy system myself.

The only solution to stop charopers/min-maxers, one that really works, has been a strong GM/DM.  It's been the same since the 1970s.

Further I don't see how it makes "more sense."   That last statement just doesn't make any sense at all. I'm a level 20 wizard with a 12 intelligence, check out my spell book.  I'm a level 20 fighter with a 14 intelligence but I never had what it took to cast one arcane spell. Make sense? nope.

People are just going to ignore what they don't like anyway. Isn't that the one of the selling points of a soggy system (reduced-rules) that people can make up their own rules. I think we will see people just ignoring rules they don't like, like they did with racial maximums and of course ability minimums in AD&D.  If a rule is made and it is purely for meta-game considerations like game balance, then they tend to get vetoed out in favor of more realistic (making more sense) rules, especially if those rules get in the way of what they want to do.

So no, charopers/min-maxers will be fine.  People who play by the rules, or at least the spirit of rules at least, will be hampered a bit though.

People will ignore certain rules. Do you have a character in mind? Why let the dice stop you? "Roll" the stats you need to "Build" the character you want by writing (or typing if that is your thing) the numbers in the boxes YOU want. I know, I know, a bit of 'avant garde' "out there" thinking going on, but your game, your rules. Who needs dice at this stage anyway?