D&D Next Feedback

If anyone has any feedback on D&D Next, please post it here. I just got some from a playtest I did this Saturday, so I'm probably going to be compiling a big batch of it before Christmas.

Well I'm really enjoying it. I was thinking of going Ranger, except there are only two favored enemies. I would have liked to pick Humanoids, specifically criminals/fugitives/bounties. Man, the deadliest prey... Sadly, I will have to settle for feedback.

All stuff that could have been told, I already did the feedback directly on the parts that I can answer by myself.

My only real complaint is that it is not very clear which skills get bonuses and there is nowhere on the character sheet to really indicate the total bonuses.

Nother reason my Azeroth ruleset is simplifying 'skill' rolls even further (down to Attribute rolls).

No feedback of course, already sent mine in.

Alright, for those who have already put in their feedback, thanks.

Impressions in no particular order.

1. I don't care for the Attribute increases in exchange for feats. Why am I being penalized for wanting class complexity?

2. I also don't care for their loosening of the action designations. Instead of just saying swift/minor, standard, and move as shorthand, everything now has to literally explain how it works in full every time. Super annoying from an information organization level.

3. Happy to see them continuing their efforts from 4E to make Paladins more playable. Ditching the code and potentially rolling the Evil Paladins into one class makes a hell of a lot more sense to me.

4. More healing options would be nice so we don't always have to have someone playing the cleric. It's one of the best things 4E did and I hope they continue that forward.

5. I really love the layering of the classes and backgrounds to generate heroes with cool minor RP abilities.

6. No comments on the monsters since they already admitted on Twitter they are a bit borked and weren't the focus of the playtest.

That's all for now. If I think of more I'll post them up.

Something I don't like is how multiclassing requires increases in attributes. I could roll up a Fighter with:
0 Str
+4 Dex
-2 Con
+3 Int
+2 Wis
0 Cha

but my Mage needs 15 Str(+2) in order for him to take a level in Fighter? What messed up mind did that come from? And what happened to prestige classes?

I agree fully with the multiclassing thingy, which was one of the early things I've noted when we started the campaign. Maybe they were trying to stop 'dipping' into a class very often, because the first 3 levels are usually the ones that get you pretty useful stuff. That, or they derped pretty hard.

And about prestige classes, I'm sure they will be around, but prestige classes are usually the last to arrive, after all the math and base classes are (in their minds) solid.

I noticed that, for example, Flaming Sphere requires:

a "bit" of tallow
a "pinch" of brimstone
a "dusting" of powdered iron

How do you measure this shit? What's a "bit", what's a "pinch", and what's a "dusting"? And why not just defer to imperial/metric measurings? Such words exist only to be nouns in place of adjectives such as "little, small, tiny", which are no more precise than they are, as a rough estimate of size/quantity.

It's because you're assumed to have it on you provided you have a spell component pouch. Anything that does not have a listed gold value it is assumed that you have ready.

Or as we in the MTG business call it, that's flavor.

I've always hated the spell component tracking. When I GM, I've always told my players to basically spend an appropriate amount of money whenever you're in a market place to buy "stuff" and call it good. The only times components would ever matter is for the uber-high level spells (like resurrection) that require things like diamonds.

That's just me though.

I usually do something similar; it's basically like this, you have a bag of holding that only holds spell components and it never runs out, and basically you never have to keep track of it evah.  Why keep components at all?  Because if you lose that bag for plot, suspense, or challenge reasons, you lose the ability to cast anything, and regaining it becomes a big deal. 

Conversely I sometimes rule that there just are no components to spells period because screw it.  I usually only do that for people who don't know playing a mage-type class that well because it's such a difficult class type to optimize.

Or just get Eschew Materials and never worry about those ever again - even when you don't have a spell component pouch! You'll swear by it after that one time you are locked up in a dungeon without your gear.

Okay. But something else that's bugging me, can a PC move Flaming Sphere into or through an occupied square to do higher than 2d6 to the occupant? You'd think that would be plausible, even if the PC lost the sphere as a result.

If I GMed it, I'd say the sphere stops upon the first obstacle touched and deal the damage as normal now (or none by dex saving throw), but does not activate again at the start of the target's turn. If it passes by anyone in the way, it would be fast enough to not cause damage.

My reasoning is for gameplay balance. Instead of simply more damage, it gives the wizard the tactical decision of forcing the sphere's damage on their target before the start of the target's turn. This is meaningful, as a target with low HP could be forced to go down now, instead of maybe receive a healing or fire protection or move them out of the square by one of his allies before their turn is reached.

Why I think that way? Because this spell can be used by every NPC wizard out there as well. And then the party will have to deal with crazy wizards throwing flaming spheres directly at them for the extra damage just because the party's wizard wanted extra damage.

Who it moves through during the wizard's turn when he moves it is actually irrelevant. It only does its damage upon the start of a someone's turn if they're within 5 feet of it.

It's to make damage tracking easier.

Badguy starts turn.
Is badguy next to flaming sphere?
If yes, take 2d6 fire damage.
If no, he takes no fire damage.

See, only one yes/no question. They are striving to keep complexity down with this edition and keeping the yes/no's to one or two is part of that.

Now that I can talk about this in public, I feel like the racial traits of Tieflings come up short in relation to other races. The Races document says that Tieflings have resistance to fire damage, but not how much. My special 1/day ability grants me advantage with an offensive spell or an attack, but it's not a constant, like Orcs' advantage on Intimidation or Elves' advantage against Charm.

Seeing as it's a 1/day ability, it'd be more fitting if it added a little extra damage on a successful hit, or maybe an automatic hit, or a bigger damage die. Some of those might seem too much, but there has to be an acceptable change I haven't listed, because as it stands, it doesn't seem like much compared to what's on the table for other races.

I wonder if the fire resistance is total? As in you take no damage?

It's too bad short rests are an hour long. It makes powers like Infernal Wrath much less useful.

Resistance means you take half damage no matter what.