| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if any of this makes it into the final product, I think I can safely say, "Pathfinder, I love you. I'll never, ever leave you."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Advice to WotC;
(1)Purchase a copy of the D&D Cyclopedia.
(2)Tidy up, but change nothing.
(3)Print.
(4)D&D for the win!
Pazio has a complicated d20 D&D-like RPG to the point of silliness going fine and sewn up, go back to the roots of D&D young WotC - find your soul again. Let go of the half-dragon/half-goblin/half-rabbit/half-elf (hmmm, that makes 2 - oh well best make it a L size PC) Wizard/Ranger/Plumber/Part-time Lover - and give us a class. Nothing wrong with being a Fighter now and a Fighter til death do you part.
Check list of D&D Cyclopedia;
(1) Classes - yep
(2) Skills - yep
(3) Feats (well called Weapon Mastery) - yep
We missing anything?
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I looked at his review and I got a big ol bowl of "meh". One, I doubt any of this will actually even reach playtesters who've signed up. Second, I doubt any of this will get past playtesters and into actual print. There are some.....OK ideas here, but I'm not a fan of class 'rarity' being factored into either their history, fluff, or mechanics.
I understand the modular part, and I like the options of going more Tactical/War-game if I choose to do so and there should be stuff in there for people who enjoy that. There should also be a more skeletal aspect to character design/creation for people who aren't impressed with Martial Maneuvers, Battle-Stances, Tactical Feats, Wizard Spell-Feats, etc... and just want to roll up a 1st level Fighter with a sword/board and Roleplay the rest. But D&D SHOULD (actually, they must) be able to provide both in meaningful ways or they'll fail...hard.
But as I go through his list of rants and other musings......I'm just not sure at this time that I'm ready for even touch 5E playtest. But we'll see.
I stopped reading at, I'm not under the nda. How did he see it and not get under the nda?
|
Giving credit to the report for the sake of discussion (but with more than a pinch of salt!), I find the 5e "innovations"... lacking.
While AC and HP are a pet peeve of mine (scrap'em both, I say!), defences... no really?
Seven static numbers... that's the mess of pre-3.X save types with the blandness of post-3.x rules. Uuugh.
Hope it's just a joke.
Well, if any of this makes it into the final product, I think I can safely say, "Castles & Crusades, I love you. I'll never, ever leave you."
FTFY.
I have to reiterate that based on my experience playtesting it at D&DXP that I am legitimately interested in it and remain optimistic at its potential. After meeting and playing at Bruce Cordell's table I fully admit he's human, seems very nice, and appears to have good intentions. Your mileage may vary of course, and who knows what the final product will look like but from one who has actually played it, if you like a modular system that allows for a lot of different play styles, you should give it a shot. If you're married to the 10,000 layers of detail that 3.x (and its descendants) offer, then it may not be for you.
Scott usually has some insight into this stuff...lets see if he posts anything.
I hope that people who meet me report to others that I "appeared reasonably lifelike."
Heh. Well my statement was sort of intended to assuage the fears/suggestions that the designers of 5e were some form of subhuman species, or an outsider from some lower plane. I may not be an inquisitor able to detect good/evil at will, but I didn't perceive any blatantly obvious evil aura and if he was bluffing at being a nice guy, he either took 20 or rolled very well.
Well, you test for a simulacrum by giving them a salt-rimmed margarita. If their lips start melting off, you've got a snowman with illusions of grandeur.
no idea what to think of this new system if it is true and it's certainly not the final look on it so who knows what they might do to improve and balance the game.
|
I hope that people who meet me report to others that I "appeared reasonably lifelike."Heh. Well my statement was sort of intended to assuage the fears/suggestions that the designers of 5e were some form of subhuman species, or an outsider from some lower plane. I may not be an inquisitor able to detect good/evil at will, but I didn't perceive any blatantly obvious evil aura and if he was bluffing at being a nice guy, he either took 20 or rolled very well.
Oh, the designers are always the nice, gamer-friendly cool folks. But those CEOs and CTOs, the folks who actually call shots? Cold, uncaring machines with little regard for their customers and their hobby. Living calculators in suits. I mean, c'mon, can you imagine a CEO of a major gaming company collecting silly Star Wars toys or actually playing the game they put out? Such stuff *just* *doesn't* *happen*. ;)
FTFY.
FTFY? What does that mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FTFY.FTFY? What does that mean?
Fixed. That. For. Ya.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'd like to say it's interesting, but, well...not so much. The writer is clearly an edition warrior deluxe, and it's impossible to say if things are really that bad or if he's just grinding the anti-3e axe out of old habit.
Hopefully, it will be better than the review indicates. Still, I wish they'd gone in the opposite direction - kept the 4e mechanical chasis and rebuilt the classes, put back in some stats removed for the sake of simplification (e.g., bludgeoning damage type), brought back ye old Vancian casting (for better and for worse), and, for the love of god, a book with coherent and interesting text instead of pages upon pages upon pages upon pages of powers. Because, at the end of the day, there's a better version of D&D buried under the 4e fluff.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
After meeting and playing at Bruce Cordell's table I fully admit he's human....I hope that people who meet me report to others that I "appeared reasonably lifelike."
Let me check my notes...
"Clearly an android sent from the future to destroy mankind."
Hmmm...you may want to reconsider your hopes...
Some of the stuff doesn't line up with what I've read on the WotC blogs. For instance the way this guys says the classes will be presented greatly differs from: All the classes that have every appeared in a PHB 1 will be in the first release.
|
Not really. You still have to convert between 3.0, 3.5 and PF if you want to play strictly in those rulesets, and its easy because they are similar. I'd defy you to convert a RuneQuest character easily across to any form of D&D, as the systems are radically different. Conversion is much easier if the systems are similar, or at share some basic precepts, and gets harder to do (while actually looking like the same character) the less similar they are.
Wading through all the of author's whining, the leaked preview gives a little better insight as to what's going on with 5e at least. Still could be full of **** and fake, but we'll find out soon enough.
But really, according to the author it's a 1.0 draft. Even if it's legit, 1.0 sounds almost like "ideas sketched out on a napkin" early. Not worried about what does or doesn't sound good, for all we know every piece of it could change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"...it's a punch to the stomach to see that a bunch of honest-to-goodness grognards are running the show."
Comments like this make it really, really hard to wade through the BS and find anything useable from this "leaked preview." Could've saved everyone the time and just made a ranty post on a message board, kinda like I am now. :)
I don't have time for the headaches of conversions. To me it's a waste of time. There is already enough effort on getting the rules 100% right. IF you don't do that then you're just playing your own modified game, you're not playing the official game itself. There is no leaked review of 5th edition, the game is still in its skeleton form. It will be fleshed out over the next 18 months.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is no leaked review, this is someone who's mad that they're moving on from his favorite edition and trying to damage the company in any way that he can.
I don't think it's hogwash, mainly because most of what he's been going over we already know about via the Legends and Lore articles or messageboards or blogs or etc... In fact, I think most of the stuff he's brought up is legit, even if it is in a negatative tone. The biggest problems I've found with the content (if it is indeed true) is that it's not making the game any BETTER.
It's different, by some good measures it's doing that. It's making it modular and one might argue that it's an improvement. And it's definitly not 4E, again some arguments about this being a better route. BUT I've not come across something that makes me say "Damn! I wish they did that for X-edition." Nothing eye-popping in scope of the gaming industry. Nothing really......original (so far) that springs at the reader to say THIS is how D&D and RPGs should be.
After the actual open playtest and until I can take real account of the system, the hype seems a little sour for my tastes so far. But I hope I'm wrong and I can play the sort of character I'm used to playing or DMing a game where I don't have to choose between mechanically sound monsters or flavorful ones OR worry about an encounter I intended to be a drain on the party resources turn into a TPK when 3 rolls go bad. But I've hated 2E/AD&D with a passion and I'd be pretty let down if that's the starting block they decide to build from.
I think they are taking a somewhat nostalgic 'let's try and pick the best bits from previous editions' approach, rather than inventing some new, revolutionary system. As such, I think the chances of anything eye-poppingly innovative are pretty slender.
It's hard to read mood without actually being face-to-face with the people who matter, but it seems to me that the reconciliation of a fractured fanbase and the identification of the iconic bits of D&D are very much the focus of this change.
Personally, the most pleased I've been has been the recognition of the value of a "one-hour game of D&D". 4E is currently our game of choice, but it didnt take us long to houserule combats to make them go faster. Similarly with PF, although it's a little easier there since we dont know the rules well enough to make us play slowly.
We have limited time to play at this stage of life - I don't like playing for an evening without substantially advancing the plot due to getting bogged down in some protracted combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's hogwash and guessing that was cobbled together from Legends and Lore articles, messageboards, blogs, etc. and pure guesswork.
I've seen this type of "leak" before many, many times. This a troll of the first order - one who has done substantial homework and plays off the fears of people so well that they WANT to believe the B.S. is true.
Pay it no mind, check out the game for itself when they do the public beta and decide whether or not to get your knickers in a twist at that point.
But this "leak" is still completely unsubstantiated.
I think they are taking a somewhat nostalgic 'let's try and pick the best bits from previous editions' approach, rather than inventing some new, revolutionary system. As such, I think the chances of anything eye-poppingly innovative are pretty slender.
It's hard to read mood without actually being face-to-face with the people who matter, but it seems to me that the reconciliation of a fractured fanbase and the identification of the iconic bits of D&D are very much the focus of this change.
I think your right. But is that going to keep the majority of their current fanbase? Is this good for the game, overall? And will this bring back people who've felt slighted at the onset of 4E? I have this feeling that the answer to all 3 questions will be 'No'.
People who play and like 4th Edition do so because they like tactically-minded combat, character's with loads of options, a very balanced ruleset, and a separation between fluff and crunch. From reading what they've been developing, I'm not so sure it'll placate this sort of style. It might give the illusion of this style, but not a genuine thing.
Generally when you put out another edition of a game, you want it to be better than what's come before it. How it plays, how it's run by the DM, and the different aspects you can get out of it. But I don't think they're gearing D&D:Next to do this. Like you said, it's an edition designed to recreate people's play experience that ranges from 1st through 4th edition of the game under one ruleset. How does this make the game better? It might bring in older players who've cast off WotC (riiiight) so sales will go up, but will any parts of this edition make players say "Ya know, I love this rule. Lets put it into this other game or this other edition!" A lot of people don't like 4E, but they came out with some innovative ideas like Skill Challenges (done properly), Passive Perception/Passive Insight, and Healing not always having to be magical. I wonder if D&D:Next will make the industry better?
As for bringing people back....I think this is the loftiest goal they have and the hardest to fullfill. Many people have sworn off WotC entirely and won't go back regardless of what they put out. Other people are completley fine with other rulesets and companies (such as Paizo and Pathfinder). While another group isn't ready to let 4E fall off the map and will probably use that for the next decade to come. So who's left? New people, people who love RPGs in general and buy the very basics of any game, and brand loyalists. Something tells me that this had better be a wicked-awesome game to keep people coming back.
Personally, the most pleased I've been has been the recognition of the value of a "one-hour game of D&D". 4E is currently our game of choice, but it didnt take us long to houserule combats to make them go faster. Similarly with PF, although it's a little easier there since we dont know the rules well enough to make us play slowly.We have limited time to play at this stage of life - I don't like playing for an evening without substantially advancing the plot due to getting bogged down in some protracted combat.
I hear ya and I was actually pleased by this as well. But I'm not going to wait for D&D:Next to come out to find ways to fullfill this style for current editions of the game. Guidelines, minimal starting options, and a quick pace of combat with high-dmage/low-AC monsters and a more simplistic storyline could fit the bill just as easily. Though I'd be nice to have it all under one ruleset instead of having the DM modifiy things more thoroughly.
I don't have much to say really. I'm looking forward to the upcoming 4E releases and wish they'd persevered for longer but c'est la vie. I'm also looking forward to D&D next - although I have a niggling fear it's going to be even more digitally focussed than 4E which will disappoint me.
In passing, I don't think the goal of a new edition is to be better than the last -that's the main reason I never really understand "picking sides" in the various edition comparisons. 4E and PF try and fulfil different goals, in my view - there isn't any universal rpg standard by which I can measure "progress" merely a preference for different games in different situations.
Chief Technical Officer
|
It's hogwash. Easy to spot. We've got more info from folks who HAVE signed the NDA. Collectable PHB's indeed.
It's not especially clear due to the formatting of the file, but it appears to me that the poster is quoting people in a discussion thread, and that's a sarcastic quote from someone else that he then partially responds to.
Why are people getting so twisted over a review of something that has as of yet to even be released to the public? Taking the word of someone you do not know of personally or which has a proven track record for unbiased information is reckless and gullible. If I told you that I got the scoop on a new product that wasn't released yet, I doubt you would believe me. Why give anymore credit to that yahoo? This industry, more so than any other, relies on personal taste due to the creative nature of it's participants. Do not form opinions or be manipulated by some joker who hasn't any more idea of what to expect from a product than you do.
Remember these are games, not the single most important portion of your lives. Like all hobbies, RPGs allow for an escape from the day to day for a couple of hours a week. If you want to believe that something is going to suck, then why waste any of your precious time even being concerned about it? In the end, if you like fantasy roleplay, there is a good chance 5th Ed. will offer you something. So give it the benefit of a doubt and sign up for the Beta test. That is the point of having a playtest after all.
Remember these are games, not the single most important portion of your lives. Like all hobbies, RPGs allow for an escape from the day to day for a couple of hours a week. If you want to believe that something is going to suck, then why waste any of your precious time even being concerned about it? In the end, if you like fantasy roleplay, there is a good chance 5th Ed. will offer you something. So give it the benefit of a doubt and sign up for the Beta test. That is the point of having a playtest after all.
Wisely said.
I'm still hopeful about D&D Next. But they need to make with the open playtesting by July 1st if they want anyone to care or even take this seriously.
For people who are unclear on the formatting, I'm pretty sure that anything with a ">" before it is a quote from someone else that the author is just responding to, so you don't need to get too riled up over quotes about collectible PHBs or grognards running the show. They're not part of the report. (Although admittedly near the end it's hard to tell what's what.)
Why July 1?
Let me amend my comment: If I don't see open playtest material of some sort by July 1st, my interest will decline seriously. I certainly don't mean to speak for everyone; I should speak only for myself.
That statement was also predicated by an assumption that I fact-checked and about which I found myself mistaken: I had thought that official discussion of D&D Next indicated that they were aiming for a fall 2013 release date. I don't see any official word indicating that, and I think I may have confused fan speculation with official word.
However, let's go into Wild Speculation Land for a few minutes and assume for the moment that fall 2013 IS their prospective release date for D&D Next, and then compare that time line to the playtest process used by Paizo for Pathfinder.
Fans had PF alpha rules in hand in early 2008 - the first iteration dropped in March, if memory serves, but I could be wrong and couldn't find that info offhand with a Google search - with a softcover (or would you call it perfect-bound?) beta rule book by August 2008. The final rules were released in August of 2009; that would mean that Pathfinder was in playtesting and development for 17 months.
Now, if August 2013 (GenCon) is WotC's drop date for the new system, that means that if they begin playtesting in June 2012, they have roughly 14 months to wait for playtester feedback, assimilate that data, and incorporate it into their final pass.
It's my belief that a big part of D&D Next's relative success or failure will depend on how transparent the design process appears to its core of players. The big talking points coming from WotC's quarter so far are, "We want to satisfy as many players of as many editions as we can, and we want your input to do it." Simply put, the longer they wait to bring the gaming public into the process, the less inclined I am to believe that our feedback will have any relevant impact. This doubt is heightened by the reports from some 4E playtesters (and I realize the veracity of these statements can be challenged and really just amount to hearsay in the end) that their feedback was more or less ignored during the process of crafting 4E.
Additionally, as we near Memorial Day, con season kicks off in full swing (and for me, personally, a lot of local organized gaming events are on the docket between April and October). These types of events would be great for playtesting the rules and generating buzz and quality feedback by drawing both new players and players of previous editions of D&D and its relatives such as PF, C&C, DCC, etc. I'd love to be able to run blind playtest games at some of those events, and I would think - again, making the wild assumption that GenCon 2013 is the drop date for D&D Next - that WotC would want to start getting user feedback that early in the process to make sure they have the formula right.
It's hard for me to believe that a whole new game that promises as much as this one does can be playtested and finalized in less time than it took to do so for Pathfinder, a system which is really just an extension of an existing, well-established rule system rather than a new entity built from the ground up.
Of course, my entire argument, as I say, is predicated on an unverified assumption about the game's timeline - and Vic, you clearly know more about this industry than I do, so if my thinking isn't grounded in good logic, I welcome your thoughts and corrections on the matter.
The fact still stands, though: the longer they wait to release playtest materials, the less inclined I am to believe that our playtest feedback will have any pertinent impact on the design of the game. Doesn't mean I'm not interested in D&D Next - just means I'll be a little less interested than I would be otherwise.