Cantrips

After a long delay, and because I will be playtesting tomorrow, I will speak about another mechanic I found great in idea, but flawed in implementation in a single aspect.

The cantrips, like in 3E, are for the most part small utility spells, but now (maybe as in 4E?) without day limits. All great and well, these utility cantrips are fairly average in power (but allow for creative uses), and though in some of the spells (and cantrips like Minor Illusion) I would scrap the fixed DC for a normal save against spell, the cantrip mechanics are really good.

But there are some offenders to this. For clerics, it is Cure Minor Wounds and Lance of Faith. For wizards it is Chill Touch, Ray of Frost and Shocking Grasp. And while Cure Minor Wounds is a special case, the other four share the same problem, a really high damage input, with some extra effects for the wizard's ones.

First, for Cure Minor Wounds, I think the problem is the cantrip is too weak. But I also think there is a very simple way of increase its power and utility in higher levels, but this comes at a cost at lower levels. To do this, associate the maximum HP the creature must have at the given moment to be healed with its HD. That means that while a level 1 creature (if it don't have extra HD) can have cured at most only 1 HP, a level 20 can have cured up to 20 HP. The cantrip is slight worse in the first two levels, but get better from 4th level and up.

The other offenders, though, I think the problem is that they are too powerful. I had a playtest some time ago, with two player, each one with two characters, one playing the dwarf fighter and the halfling rogue (a fighting player), and the other playing the human cleric and a self-made human wizard (a spellcaster player). The spellcaster player just used a weapon once (the cleric's mace), and even then he failed (and remarked how just really much better is to simply spam offensive cantrips than even trying with the weapons).

The cleric Lance of Faith have a reasonable range, but already in the 1st level cause more damage than the heavy crossbow (the better long range weapon damage), and the same as a greataxe, greatsword, lance or maul (and they don't have a range). Besides, its attack roll is optimized for the cleric, causing weapons to be near useless for the cleric.

A way to fix it is reducing its damage from 2d6 to 1d4, adding the Wisdom modifier of the cleric as a bonus, and increasing its damage by 1d4 on the 7th level, on the 11th level and on the 16th level, to a maximum of 4d4 + Wisdom modifier.

The wizard offensive cantrips too cause much damage, already in the 1st level causing the same damage as a heavy crossbow or a glaive, and ray of frost have a good range too (though the others are touch based).

A way to fix it is reducing the damage of the cantrips to 1d4 (without the Intelligence modifier, though), mantaining the special effects. In the case of ray of frost, reduce the range to 50 feet, and after the speed of the target is reduced by 10 feet, the minimum is 5 feet.

As a final note... I don't have certainty about this, but maybe it would be good to reduce Mage Armor from 12 to 11, as the equivalent material armor is the dragon leather (and is pretty expensive at 500 gp). Treating it as a leather armor might be best. Perhaps, increasing it from 11 to 12 in 10th level, and maybe even from 12 to 13 in 20th level.

Combat Expertise, Maneuvers and the Fighting classes

This post is a criticism to two mechanics I find great, but that I think interact poorly with the fighting classes as they stand now.

Combat Expertise is a great mechanism for the fighting classes, as it rises not only its accuracy, but also its damage output. I can't say yet how it will interact with the new rules for magic (though I really didn't like the wizard cantrips I already saw), but in itself, it is a step in the right direction.

Considering, too, the relative low rising power with levels for the d20 mechanics (attacks, checks, skill checks, saves, AC and DC), the maximum of +5 in accuracy make sense. And the bonus martial damage (dice and static) is a beautiful idea, though I can't say if its application is overpowered or underpowered (need some playtests).

Originally (from what I read) this feature was going to be fighter exclusive, but later it was added to all fighting classes, and it make sense too, even if I would like to see it reduced for some classes (like the rogue, and even the cleric), trading for some other benefits.

Also, the idea of spending martial damage dice (mdd) to fuel maneuvers was pretty good, if wasn't for one detail. Except for feats, only the fighter and the monk must have maneuvers. Don't get me wrong, I really liked that both classes have unique maneuvers that only them can have. What I don't liked was that it reduced the effectiveness of the fighter and the monk as a dispenser of damage if he use the maneuvers for a tactical boon, while the barbarian and the rogue don't have to do this to use their features, turning both in much better high damage dispensers than the fighter and the monk. What would have turned the fighter in an unique class (and made it!), weakened him after all!

My solution? I don't have one... But I have some alternative ideas. And though they aren't universal enough (I still must study more of the rules, and I'm at best mediocre with math), they can be good ideas after (if) properly developed.

1) Instead of mdd, how about bonus weapon dice (bwd) for Combat Expertise? I stole this idea from here: http://criticalwits.info/2012/12/27/article-dd-next-an-alternative-to-combat-expertise/. With bwd, not only the weapon of choice will be a major part of damage even at higher levels, but the weapon would influence what type of maneuvers that character would take.

A low-damage weapon? How about disarm or lunge that don't need to roll the bwd? A high damage weapon? How about composed attack or glancing blow? Maybe even modify the mechanics for some of the maneuvers (like trip) to give benefit to those using high damage weapons.

2) What about replacing and/or reordering some features of the barbarian and the rogue to force them to take one general maneuver at 2nd and at 4th level? Don't give them class maneuvers, but force them to take some general maneuvers.

3) And what about giving fixed extra damage dice for all the attacks of the fighter only, based on his class alone? Maybe +1d6 at 6th level, and +1d6 at every +5 levels. This will turn the fighter in a better damage dispenser, even without the rage damage bonus of the barbarian, and some of the rogue talents, all the while the fighter still can spend his mdd (of bwd, if that rule is applied) to take maneuvers.

Besides, allow the Parry feature of the fighter to reduce damage from ranged attacks when the fighter is with a shield (arrows in the shield!). As I think the Combat Surge feature is weak (maybe I'm wrong), I think those two will balance more the fighter.

Last, but not least... Please, turn the Called Shot feat in a simple maneuver that function like Disarm, but only to ranged attacks. Maybe this maneuver even spend double mdd (or bwd) to function! But please, do not leave this as a feat.

Races

For my first post, I'll talk about the races.

First of all, I really liked the descriptions of the race, they have all that D&D feeling I learned to love, and that 4E got watered down (but it's a great game, really! it's just more in line with MMO than P&P).

The descriptions are reminiscent of Tolkien, though I would like more variety in the description. Why not redheaded dwarves, and pale (ghostly so) mountain dwarves? Or tanned (even an outright wood-color skin) and redread or blonde wood elves? But all in all, the descriptions are great.

Then there comes the traits. Dwarves and elves are all great and fine for the most part, and even halflings. But before I talk about humans, let's talk about them, starting with the halflings.

Halflings

The halfling are a good race, and their traits are cool for their niche, but I still can not like their Lucky trait.

Maybe it's only a silly dislike from my part (I still must see how this will play in the playtest), but a reroll to any attack, check or saving (even when the original roll was made with advantage) seems to me much more powerful than the mainly situational dwarf and elf traits, and probably I would replace it with three advantages per day in any attack, check or save the halfling want.

However, this being probably only a dislike from me, I have to concede that while the dwarf subraces and the high elves grant really good traits, and the wood elves gain two situational ones, the halfling subraces gain each one only a situational trait each.

Still, the stout subrace is basically imune to fear, once it can take an action (the next turn?). Though he must sacrifice an action to this, why not just declare that a stout always have advantage in a save against fear (and any disadvantages aren't considered for them) and can reroll the save in the next turn (with an advantage) in case of failure?

Demihumans

Not dwarves, not elves... Demihumans in general. All of them have a +1 ASA (Ability Score Adjustment) according to its subrace, all great and good. But why not a -1 ASA too, like in the old editions (AD&D1E, AD&D2E and AD&D3E)? Halflings are as strong as an dwarf or elf, or as a non-ASA human? Come on! Don't fear "nerfing" so much, it's a P&P game after all, there is more than powergaming to it.

First of all, I would give all the non-human subraces a -1ASA. For hill dwarves, it would be a -1 Cha (they are grouches after all), and for mountain dwarves a -1 Dex (less prone to action, dislike long-range weapons, or simply "because in FR is so"). For both elf subraces, it would be a -1 Con (they are mor fragile than humans), and for both halfling subraces, it would be a -1 Str (come on!).

Now, I don't know if I would mantain the bonuses as they are, or if I would get them bigger. But if the humans remain with those big bonuses of them (as it is now),I would increase the ASA bonuses of the other races to +2. Hill dwarves would get +2 Con, while mountain dwarves +2 Wis, high elves +2 Int, wood elves and lightfoot halflings +2 Dex, and stout halflings +2 Cha. Otherwise, with the humans as they are now, the ASA from other races don't make any  sense (every dwarve is weaker than a human, and every elf is uglier)!

Humans

Ah... Humans... I love them! (really, I love!)

The race that dominates almost every single D&D campaign setting, since that old dusty edition from Gary Gygax, that started it all not only for D&D but for RPG itself.

And why they dominate? In the basic rulebooks from CD&D, because they were more numerous. In CD&D BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D 1E and 2E, because their level cap was greater. In 3E because they rubbed everyone noses with their bonus feat. And in 4E, well, I don't know, but surely there is some explanation.

Now, in the D&D5E, it's because they are better in every single thing. Your high elf is intelligent? My human is as intelligent as your high elf, and stronger, wiser, more charismatic (even prettier), more agile and (maybe as a nod to previous editions) more robust too! And if he really wants, he is even smarter than your high elf!

My complaint about humans isn't that they are bland. Humans are supposed to be bland! Neither that they are too generic, as they are also supposed to be this. Neither too powerful, as they get none of those goodies the other races have. My complaint is that they simply don't make sense as baseline if they are as they are now.

My solution? I don't have a solution... But I have an alternative, with many nods to 3E, and that allows the creation of human sub-races to those DMs who so desire, as you'll see below:

Human Traits

ASA: +1 to two or +2 to one. Reduced because of all those other nifty things.

ASA (optional): +1 to one. This trait is used if you add the negative ASA for demihumans (as shown above) without also rising their positive ASA.

Human WT: When you attack with any two weapons you chose at character creation with which you are proficient, the damage die for that weapon increases by one step: from d4 to d6, d6 to d8, d8 to d10, d10 to d12, and d12 to 2d6. This trait makes humans more in line with the other races, as they all have WT (Weapon Training).

Skilled: You are trained in two extra skills you chose at character creation. An obvious nod to 3E, and to "humans as jack-of-all-trades".

Jack-of-all-Trades: Once per day, when you make a check with a skill you don't have, you can add your skill die nevertheless. Exactly what it says in the tin.

Destiny: Once per day, when you make an attack roll, check, or saving throw, you can, after rolling, roll an extra 1d6 destiny die and add the number rolled to the result. Just to enforce the trope "humans are great/destined to greatness".

Adaptability (Optional): You gain an extra feat. This trait replace Destiny, and is only valid if feats become the norm in DDN. Besides, is an unabashed nod to 3E.

Opening Post

First of all, although english is not my primary language (I'm brazilian and speak portuguese), I'll be writing this blog and its blogposts in english, because the developers and most gamers/readers of D&D Next are american or anglophones (even if no one ever read any of my posts).

For this, I already apologize for any grammatical and orthographic errors.

Now, without further delay...

This blog was created to analyse and comment on the playtest next edition of D&D (AD&D? :P), as of march 1st of 2.013. What attracted me in this next edition is the "old school feeling" it have, with the promises of streamlined and balanced rules from the developers.

My primary focus will be in the mechanical aspects of the game, though I may lack in math. I will also analyse the playing potential of the rules (how they interact with the game, both mechanics and roleplay aspects), based on playtest sessions with my own players.

In my posts there will be an analysis of the rules (it is the blog name, after all), possible alternatives, and reviews of the play sessions. Also, some random comments on topics of my interest, as Planes of Existence and optional rules.

Hope you enjoy!