|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking that 5e (from the play test) is a great counter-point to PF. PF is the behemoth evolution of 3.5e that gives those who love the character optimisation with numerous widgets to play with a, let face, awesome game with massive publishing values.
From the playtest 5e material I have now read it is actually old school feel in a modern wrapping! Now I discounted comments of 'old school' regards 5e, before I read the material myself. How could a new game have an old feel? Well I was at least based on playtest material at least took me back to sitting around with friends on the floor 27 years ago looking in wonder at this thing called D&D.
I didn't see 5'-steps, or squares, or any of the 3e/4e things that annoyed the crap out of me.
If 5e continues to develop this way I can see myself investing in the core PHB/DMG/MM set without thinking twice.
For those curious I would recommended the 15 minutes out of your RPG life to download the playtest material and read it.
I am NOT a WotC fan-boy, it took me a year or so to give 4e ago and even now I would rather play 4e Essentials rather than 4e Core. But I have warmed to this new 5e D&D (and I think this time it REALLY is D&D) on first reading.
Musings,
Stefan.
I agree and I'm in the same boat. Maybe it's the font or the layout but I did get that nostalgia warble go through me when I took a looksie through it.
I'm actually, legitimately interested in what this will eventually become and very much enjoy the simplicity of some of the rules. To be honest, while I have a solid grasp on the 3.x system, some of the people I play with really do not and if this playtest is any indication, it may be much easier to teach them this version of D&D then try to bang in all the things they haven't gotten yet. I'm really hoping that the finished product isn't some kind of alien in comparison with what I'm seeing, flaws and all.
|
I think the old school factor has a lot to do with the simplicity of the combat system, which is very abstract and doesn't assume a grid. That, I think, will be a huge selling point for Next.
If they also provide an optional module for more tactical, grid-based combat, it should also cover the needs of a lot of 3e and 4e players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I could say I see what you are. But I don't
I don't see nearly enough information in the play test to make that kind of call.
The rules look simplistic because you're looking at maybe 10% of them.
|
|
I wish I could say I see what you are. But I don't
I don't see nearly enough information in the play test to make that kind of call.
The rules look simplistic because you're looking at maybe 10% of them.
I think it's largely due to the fact that, as WotC has stated, the first playtest release is just to test the very basics of the system. It's hard to build upon a system if they haven't fixed all the kinks at the very base of the system.
Also, the rules may seem lacking in stuff like adjudicating skills and tactical combat, but that might also be intentional: as far as the people in charge have implied, some and/or all of those things may be entirely optional and handled through rules modules.
So what we might actually be looking at is 100% of the core mechanics as they are at the moment, and only once they pull back the curtain will we see the modular mechanics.
EDIT: But yeah, on a basic level, there's more than enough here to run a full game, even though we're still missing the rules for character creation. Once those are out of the bag, s+!& will get real.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I could say I see what you are. But I don't
I don't see nearly enough information in the play test to make that kind of call.
The rules look simplistic because you're looking at maybe 10% of them.
In a way that is what I'm saying - this is the Red Book of old. Back to the days when a dragon would be in a room that it couldn't actually have ever got into unless it was two years old - and now can never leave, perhaps that's why dragons are so angry?
I guess we are hoping WotC don't mess up a good start. PF has the grid/feat/CharOp system of play almost perfected. I would say we don't need another, and likely not as good, PF on the market. We need D&D. I see so far 1e/2e core ideas with d20 mechanics - keep that system principle in mind and WotC will have my money for 5e.
Rules aside if we look at the character sheets we can get an idea of where they are going - and as I said, I would based on what we see 'to date' go there too.
When they started releasing info on 4e way back I was thinking "What for the love of Asmodeus do you think you are freak'n doing WotC!!!". This release I'm chanting "WotC keep doing what you are doing!!!".
S.
|
|
I was thinking that 5e (from the play test) is a great counter-point to PF. PF is the behemoth evolution of 3.5e that gives those who love the character optimisation with numerous widgets to play with a, let face, awesome game with massive publishing values
Took me a while, but in the meantime I totally agree. Obviously there are people who don't like 3.x/PF as much as I do, so if there's a variant of D&D they prefer I think it's actually a good thing.
For the same reason, though, I'm firmly convinced that they cannot pull the stunt and design a system which serves both factions of the audience. They simply won't be able to design a system I prefer over 3.x/PF (or AD&D 2nd) AND contains the stuff appealing to old school or 4E players.
That doesn't mean that D&D Next won't be a great game. Maybe it will even make a new addition to my game table.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran screaming to Pathfinder to recapture the feel of what DnD is to me. I'm entrenched in it thanks to the fantastic Paizo staff and that's not going to change, but it will be nice to also support a healthy DnD as well again.
I wish them well.
I agree completely. From what we've seen so far, the new D&D may well be a decent system. Unfortunately for WotC, I don't really see anything in it that would convince me to leave Paizo and the game I love after years of bad business practices and abuse from WotC (I'm talking about telling everyone that liked 3.x that they were doing it wrong, pulling the 3.x pdfs, etc).
Having been burned by them before, and having found a company that I like to support much more, it won't be a game for me. That doesn't mean you'll find me bashing the system or people who enjoy playing it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ran screaming to Pathfinder to recapture the feel of what DnD is to me. I'm entrenched in it thanks to the fantastic Paizo staff and that's not going to change, but it will be nice to also support a healthy DnD as well again.
I wish them well.
I agree completely. From what we've seen so far, the new D&D may well be a decent system. Unfortunately for WotC, I don't really see anything in it that would convince me to leave Paizo and the game I love after years of bad business practices and abuse from WotC (I'm talking about telling everyone that liked 3.x that they were doing it wrong, pulling the 3.x pdfs, etc).
Having been burned by them before, and having found a company that I like to support much more, it won't be a game for me. That doesn't mean you'll find me bashing the system or people who enjoy playing it.
If WotC's plan is too make people leave Paizo they will fail. I suspect they are providing another style of play of a fantasy RPG however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not entirely sure that 5e will be as rules-lite as the first playtest makes it seem. Just about any version of D&D can be rules-lite when you strip it down to three levels, four classes, and four races. Let's see what the game looks like when you've got everything in play.
As to gaining me as a customer, while the playtest is a step in the right direction (as it makes me believe that this edition of D&D is going to be my style of game), I think the supplementary material will make a huge difference. I'm playing Pathfinder not so much because of the rules, but because everything around those rules does such a nice job of getting my imagination going. Adventures and setting material haven't traditionally been WotC's strong point. Having some sort of OGL would be a good way of allowing other companies to pick up the slack, but I think that boat may have sailed.
I think the supplementary material will make a huge difference. I'm playing Pathfinder not so much because of the rules, but because everything around those rules does such a nice job of getting my imagination going. Adventures and setting material haven't traditionally been WotC's strong point.
I really hope they've come around to this view as well. I've been pleased with the recent efforts (certainly a big step up from the initial 4E offerings) but I wish more of it was in print, rather than PDF only.
.What they have put out in the last twelve to eighteen months has been much better though, imo. (Although still not at Paizo's standard, imo).
|
|
Having some sort of OGL would be a good way of allowing other companies to pick up the slack, but I think that boat may have sailed.
I know it's impossible to prove at this point, but how much you wanna bet this was why MC left WotC? Honestly, a comprehensive and open OGL such as the original d20 (and how Paizo releases all their gaming mechanics) is probably the only way you'll ever see me playing D&D Next. I'm not holding my breath.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping that WotC understand that a red dragon only needs 66 hp and that PC hit dice caps stop the craziness of 3e/4e/PF.
Only if it's hatchling. I'd really like great wyrms being so hard to kill that PCs will have to quest for special dragonslaying weapons to stand a chance against them. At least until demigod levels.
|
|
I'm hoping that WotC understand that a red dragon only needs 66 hp and that PC hit dice caps stop the craziness of 3e/4e/PF.Only if it's hatchling. I'd really like great wyrms being so hard to kill that PCs will have to quest for special dragonslaying weapons to stand a chance against them. At least until demigod levels.
Bring back the Dragonlance feel? Wouldn't that be something!
I've always thought most of the unarmed combat stuff was needlessly complicated, grappling included.
Yeah me too, plenty of reasons for disliking 4e and wotc in my book, but the advertising was just inept rather than malign imo.
Tbh I thought the ad with the dragon taking a dump on 'grognards' was the only one that actually seemed genuinely aimed at people who liked previous iterations of the game - and that was just a bit lame. A bad ad.
Certainly not the cause of my ongoing mistrust of wotc to 'get it right'.
Wow really? Anyone who doesn't agree with you that WotC is great and 4e is the best thing ever must be "looking to be offended"?
Except he didn't say that.
This entire "debate" has become utterly unhinged from reality. On the bright side, I suppose this whole mess servers as excellent illustration of confirmation bias.
|
|
Wow really? Anyone who doesn't agree with you that WotC is great and 4e is the best thing ever must be "looking to be offended"?Except he didn't say that.
This entire "debate" has become utterly unhinged from reality. On the bright side, I suppose this whole mess servers as excellent illustration of confirmation bias.
Maybe I should've just turned the other cheek, but I used no more hyperbole than Scott did.
I give up. This is like Israel vs. Palestine...and likely to be solved around the same time.
I sorta laughed at the commerical (the guy with the bad French accent, right?) because it was mostly true when the poked a bit of fun at 3E (the edition I started play and still do today *gasp!*). The thing is, I don't know why people took it so seriously? If you can't laugh at yourself, then who can you laugh at? I thought it was very tongue-in-cheek yet held very truisms within that commercial. Grappling in v3.5, I felt, was horrific. No one ever used it unless you had a character build specifically for that reason, which was a 90% career investment in feats, skill, Prestige Classes, and magical items. Anything else and your just gonna stay grappled when the monster hits you anyways.
As for the differences in PF and DDN and stopping edition wars? I don't see it. 4E and PF are pretty far removed from eachother in ridiculous ways, yet we have people who bash on (mostly here to get people's pants in a twist) 4E for X reasons and get retorts for Y reason (see above postings). I think thats why I liked 4E and supported it fully instead of Pathfinder. I didn't feel Pathfinder brought anything "new" to the market. It rehashed and reflavored and renewed a system that, personally, was becoming a quagmire of brokeness and exploited builds that were often considered "required" to play. Not saying that this is FACT, which it isn't, but it sure felt that if I wasn't playing a Tripping-Spiked Chain fighter with AoO's being my big "Go-To" then I wasn't doing it right. Tome of Battle helped relieve some of the growing concerns about balance, but too little, too late as they say.
Also, there are certain aspects I had hoped Pathfinder would fix but didn't. The Fighter, for instance, is still as drab and boring as ever. Sure, some benefits to skills and not being scared is nice....until 10th level when those benefits don't work as well as they should and monsters with spells have moved onto the SoD stuff. And Rogues are STILL a mess in combat. I understand they're NOT supposed to be great up-front melee guys but the BAB seriously hampers them SO much that unless your Char_Op'ing the character, best to say out of the fight until it's done (and how much fun is that, really?) My suggestion, give the Rogue Fighter BAB (bonuses, not extra attacks) when he can Sneak Attack. So a 12th level Rogue's BAB is +9/+4 but when he attacks with Sneak Attack, he gets +11/+6 modifiers.
Anyways, DDN is supposed to be strongly customizable and modular. So much that people who enjoy 1e and 2e are giving it a go and I think that's good.
|
|
The thing is, I don't know why people took it so seriously?
I remember that at a certain point I was totally confused by the way they kept telling me that the game would remain the same (with or without french accent) while at the same time changing it into something which didn't seem to have anything to do with the game I actually was playing.
"Do they really think I'm so stupid?" That was a thought I had a lot of times when reading a preview article and (I may not be alone with this) one of my weaknesses is that I tend to get angry when I feel my intelligence insulted.
So in hindsight I certainly overreacted when seeing the other commercials because at that time, like Scott said, I already was expecting to be offended.
Removed posts. Post civilly please.
The thing is, I don't know why people took it so seriously?I remember that at a certain point I was totally confused by the way they kept telling me that the game would remain the same (with or without french accent) while at the same time changing it into something which didn't seem to have anything to do with the game I actually was playing.
"Do they really think I'm so stupid?" That was a thought I had a lot of times when reading a preview article and (I may not be alone with this) one of my weaknesses is that I tend to get angry when I feel my intelligence insulted.
So in hindsight I certainly overreacted when seeing the other commercials because at that time, like Scott said, I already was expecting to be offended.
A fair point. Though, for some reason, a lot of people were under the false assumption that 4th Edition was going to look a lot like Star Wars: Saga (rules-wise) and with heavy elements of Tome of Battle thrown in. And I believe that the changes to the style of books (internal design, art, and layout) really helped hinder a fan of 3E opinion of it there too. As far as changing the game's whole scheme, I think that's something your not going to be able to get right all the time, different strokes for different folks and all that. I feel 4E is a great game with an overall D&D element. But I don't play that many other RPGs out there so perhaps I'm baised?
|
|
I feel 4E is a great game with an overall D&D element.
I wouldn't argue against this, especially not against 4E being a valid variant of D&D. To be honest, 4E contains elements I'd really love to see in 3.X (for example, Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies instead of PrCs).
So it's not that I can't appreciate what they did with 4E from a design standpoint. Even if the result was a game I don't care about too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it can't bring back PPD, PP, RSW, BW, S saves, it's no good. =)
|
|
If it can't bring back PPD, PP, RSW, BW, S saves, it's no good. =)
I play Labyrinth Lord, and I love the weird old-school save categories!
That said, I think six saves that map out directly to your abilities is a more elegant solution. It even makes more sense to me than 3e's and 4e's Fort, Will and Ref.
Also, Castles & Crusades already did it, and while I have some problems with that game's system, I think the idea of six saves dependent on ability scores is solid.
Nobody really ripped into basic (or AD&D) the way people rip into the modern editions. They just didn't buy whichever, and kept to themselves.
Of course, there wasn't an internet back then. When people argued, they had to pretty much do it face-to-face. And people are a lot more civil when they're denied the anonymity of the internet. :)
That's true, though also the cold text on the internet can suck all charm out of a statement that would raise a chuckle face to face, but get's taken as some kind of massive insult online.
Face to face arguments over editions tend to end in; 'okay let's play something else we both like'. There are plenty of games out there after all.