That's about what I've gathered from reading Mearls' articles, as well.
The last packet ruined it for me. I did not like the cantrips or spell progression at all.I'm not going to say ruined but with each 'addition' my initial (extreme) glee over D&D Next is getting a little bit of a beating.
Ditto. I feel like they're straying out of "simple, familiar base with modular options" and into "and now for something completely different." They're probably knee-jerk-reacting to a lot of incensed opinions and trying to cater to too many at once.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ditto. I feel like they're straying out of "simple, familiar base with modular options" and into "and now for something completely different." They're probably knee-jerk-reacting to a lot of incensed opinions and trying to cater to too many at once.The last packet ruined it for me. I did not like the cantrips or spell progression at all.I'm not going to say ruined but with each 'addition' my initial (extreme) glee over D&D Next is getting a little bit of a beating.
I think you are right. I can imagine many cries of 'where is the crunch' and words like system mastery used. I still hold that Pathfinder has that niche nailed (based on 3.5e) and that D&DNext just should not go there. WotC D&D Next vs Paizo Pathfinder in the same game space - well I know where my money would be...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They need to stick to their guns. Design the game they promised to design. Give us the "essence of D&D" with a very simple framework. Give us the options to replicate the style of play we want, whether it be class variants or modular rules. That is what has been promised. If they just design a new game that kinda/sorta resembles different parts of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, it's going to fall short when stacked against all of those editions on a case-by-case basis, and they'll be worse off than they were sticking with 4th.
I'm wondering if the option to "play it like your favorite earlier edition" is just going to be "buy the PDF of your favorite earlier edition."
At the moment I'm underwhelmed and hardly excited.
I'm wondering if the option to "play it like your favorite earlier edition" is just going to be "buy the PDF of your favorite earlier edition."
At the moment I'm underwhelmed and hardly excited.
I don't know, after spending the time since the release of 4E houseruling the various editions of the D20 system into some bizarre mish-mosh of a homebrew, I've recently decided to just graft a simple skill system onto the B/X game engine, to see if anyone's interested in playing that. I certainly don't mind the release of the pdfs, but it was Stars Without Number that seduced me into the OSR, rather than anything WotC did.
I am a bit interested to see if post DDN Dragon and Dungeon will support all editions; I'd like that, but am not holding my breath.
Back the subject of DDN, the simplicity of the first two or three packets was nice but the last few seem to have gone a bit off the rails (solely IMO), but I'll reserve my judgement until I see what's actually published.
...Back the subject of DDN, the simplicity of the first two or three packets was nice but the last few seem to have gone a bit off the rails (solely IMO), but I'll reserve my judgement until I see what's actually published.
That's basically how I feel about it at the moment. The initial packets were very simple, in terms of comprehension and options, and offered some limited tweaks that didn't stray too far from the spirit of its predecessors.
The D&D:N roller coaster, for me, has been Tentatively Interested -> Pleasantly Surprised -> Tentatively Disappointed. I just worry that they're too far along in the playtesting to do something so drastic as completely re-writing any mechanics - especially the class mechanics. I further worry that "play the game how you want to play it" is going to turn out to be WotC-Speak for "play the game how you want to play it, so long as you invest $200 in the necessary books to kinda-sorta imitate those books on your shelf that would be far easier to tweak-houserule yourself."
I'm not a "beta" type of guy. I'll buy the final PDF of the PH at least. I'm a little encouraged by your posts. :)
I'm with Sunderstone. Playtests are great, but I'd rather just wait for the final print and get it. Lots of things change from Beta to final, and my brain has a tendency to constantly revert back to test mode rules and confuse them with final ones. I think playtests are awesome and necessary in today's market, I'm just not the guy for the job. Drove me nuts during PF's playtest; I still found myself accidentally using playtest versions of some rules up until I finally gave that game up..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any more information here about D&D Next?
What's the latest playtest?
I'm not sure why are you people so upset about new playtest complexity or mechanics. I guess they have multiple variants and now they are gathering intel on what works and what doesn't. Throwing them at the public and watching for reaction, thus the final may or may not be rather unlike what we've seen so far.
So, uh, I just signed up for playtesting today because I was curious. Here's my response so far:
1) WotC's site layout is terrible and they should feel terrible. It's such a pain to navigate through, and it rarely brings me to what I actually want. How did they manage to make such a frustrating site layout? Seriously! Also my screen name is "Guest1507485558" for reasons I don't understand and have not been given a chance to alter. I feel special!
2) Where are the sorcerer and warlock? Were they cut from the playtest for some reason? I was actually really looking forward to seeing the new mechanics in action to understand them. But they aren't present. Anyone know? Of course, since the latest packet was released literally on April 1st, it could be some sort of strange joke (though I doubt it).
Latest Playtesting Packet Available (Added: 04/01/2013)
Other than that, it looks kind of interesting.
I'll back you up on your estimation of WoTC's whole approach. Never ever release any sort of playtest packet on April First, even a comedy one, it just looks bad.
Other than that, it looks kind of interesting.I have played since the first release and I wouldn't focus too much on what isn't in the playtest. Instead try what is in the playtest. Other stuff will be released in due course.
We are finding the new system the best we have played since 2e AD&D.
S.
That's a nice theory, but here's the thing... I literally signed up specifically to check out the new mechanics that I'd been hearing about. Like, that was very specifically one of the things I was most interested in looking at, because it sounded different than many things I'd seen before.
I'm still going to look into the 5E stuff, and I'm still interested in seeing how it works, but it's just not quite as interesting to me as it's lacking two of the things I'd been most interested, and thus I'm asking.
Again, I'd be really curious if someone knew why they were missing.
I'll back you up on your estimation of WoTC's whole approach. Never ever release any sort of playtest packet on April First, even a comedy one, it just looks bad.
I'd take a joke packet (so long as they made a real one available) but... this seems far to serious for a joke packet. It's just strange because I've heard nothing about the classes being withdrawn and their site is frustrating to navigate and ugh.
|
|
The classes almost certainly haven't been withdrawn. They've been releasing different stuff in each playtest. It's not meant to be a complete cumulative release of everything to date. Just different variants of things they want feedback on. Those two classes were in it before. I suspect they'll be back in another version.
What Jeff said.
When testing anything you want focus, asking for feedback on say the Paladin and having every second person comment on the Sorcerer (for example) wouldn't' be very helpful.
As mentioned, it is not the complete game and likely won't be until we are asked to buy the final product.
How many people still play the Pathfinder Beta compared to the production Pathfinder Core Rules 5th printing?
We are using the piecemeal release from WotC to try out classes that some of our players wouldn't have played usually. So far we haven't encountered any game breakers, a few weird things, but nothing fatal. After playing Pathfinder we are finding it less hard on the brain and kinder to the DM. Sometimes GMing Pathfinder feels like the players challenging the GMs 'game mastery' as the goal of the game.
If your wanting a more complete game feel perhaps wait until they release a 'beta' version (assuming they do).
S.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To quote the WotC site:
Will the sorcerer and warlock from an earlier playtest packet return at some point?
Yes. We haven’t forgotten about those classes at all, and continue to work on them even now, though (as Mike has mentioned before in Legends & Lore) it’s likely that the sorcerer design you saw before will become its own, new class focused more on being the “warrior mage” archetype, as opposed to trying to reskin the sorcerer to fit that archetype.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I wish I were feeling the love, but I'm not. Everything I read about this edition strikes me as the game you would play if you forgot your books and just decided to start rolling d20's. I suppose I will eventually play it, but I don't see myself seeking it out.
That said, if someone can change my feelings, I'm up for that. Anyone have an example of something they particularly like in the new edition (and why they like it)?
The more I see about this, the more I am convinced I need to see the full product to really judge it. 4E had some great elements, and the previews were largely positive, but in the end, a big failing, to me at least, was that the different pieces didn't really work all that well together as a whole. While the playtest results are interesting to see, I am waiting to see if they learned that making everything work together is just as important as making sure the individual pieces work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I were feeling the love, but I'm not. Everything I read about this edition strikes me as the game you would play if you forgot your books and just decided to start rolling d20's. I suppose I will eventually play it, but I don't see myself seeking it out.
That said, if someone can change my feelings, I'm up for that. Anyone have an example of something they particularly like in the new edition (and why they like it)?
Hm, lets see:
• Combat is quick, but also dangerous. 4 Kobolds can be a challenge even for a 4 person party.
• The math doesn't run away with itself. You can expect to stay within the 'teens (numbers wise) when you hit high levels.
• The game really does emphasize teamwork and strategy, but not necessarily on what's written down on your character sheet. Althought I've never had a problem thinking outside the box or looking at the terrain or other ways to do interesteing stuff, it seems to be a staple-point in 4E-dislike that everyone looks to their sheets first to do stuff instead of critical thinking. Since there isn't much on your character sheet and things are done primarily with Ability Challenges, it sort of forces you to think about how you can manipulate the area around you.
• Ease of DM'ing is still sort of there since the monsters are broken down into XP pools and it gives advice on what's an easy, moderate, and difficult encounter. Also, there's not a whole lot of tracking that has to be doen (ie. Marking, End-of-next-turn effects, ongoing damage, poison tracks, minor bonuses/penalties, tons of conditions, etc).
• Portability. This game is pretty easy to convert or 'port over elements from v3.5 (and some 4E) like the Wound/Vitality healing system, Second Wind, and even whole classes. Currently, I'm in the middle of crafting the Tome of Battle classes to D&D:next to give it a more 4E-Feel. Also, when homebrewing it's far easier to spot brokeness in design (meaning it's WAY overpowered or not powerful enough) than we've seen in other editions.
• It's iconic enough to be still recognizable as "D&D", which is another complaint I've heard (yet still don't fully understand?) of 4E. Your back to Vancian-only wizards, healing via Spellcasting only, Attack progressions/Spell DC progressions, and thingsl like Martial Feats :rolleyes: .
• It's free to play and download
Other than that, I think the biggest problem facing D&D:Next is that they're not clear who their target audience is. It shouts and screams "MODULAR" but we still haven't seen it yet. They shout that if you like D&D in any incarnation then you'll like D&D:Next. THey say that they're making up rules for people who enjoy tactical combat akin to 4E (like facing rules.....hahahahahah seriously) but it also emphasizes Theater of the Mind style by reverting it back to feet and units of real time (yay for 5MWD problems).
I can't say that I'll buy this, but I'm at least giving them my 2-cents where I think they need to take the editions in terms of mechanics and gameplay.
I don't recall seeing anyone state that adv/disadv was anything close to "fantastic"...but just as silly and unrealistic as anything else in DnD? probably.
Then let me help you out.
I think the adv/disadv system is fantastic. While it may be overrused at the moment, I think it's an elegant solution to a clunky problem.
D&D has always been silly and unrealistic, but I'll trade realistic for simple and easy to use any day of the week.
I don't recall seeing anyone state that adv/disadv was anything close to "fantastic"...but just as silly and unrealistic as anything else in DnD? probably.Then let me help you out.
I think the adv/disadv system is fantastic. While it may be overrused at the moment, I think it's an elegant solution to a clunky problem.
D&D has always been silly and unrealistic, but I'll trade realistic for simple and easy to use any day of the week.
I too think the Advantage/Disadvantage system is pretty easy and elegant in it's simplicity. After 3.X/PF and 4E, tracking a minutia of small bonuses and penalties plus a dozen or more conditions and other effects that happen 1-turn, it's simple to just say "roll with Advantage" and volia.
|
|
I too think the Advantage/Disadvantage system is pretty easy and elegant in it's simplicity. After 3.X/PF and 4E, tracking a minutia of small bonuses and penalties plus a dozen or more conditions and other effects that happen 1-turn, it's simple to just say "roll with Advantage" and volia.I don't recall seeing anyone state that adv/disadv was anything close to "fantastic"...but just as silly and unrealistic as anything else in DnD? probably.Then let me help you out.
I think the adv/disadv system is fantastic. While it may be overrused at the moment, I think it's an elegant solution to a clunky problem.
D&D has always been silly and unrealistic, but I'll trade realistic for simple and easy to use any day of the week.
Count me in for the Adv./Dis. McLovin' it. Agreed it is overused a little, but in general while DMing a game it is a great wee mechanic. Far faster than remembering (or looking up) numerous modifiers.
S.
|
|
How similar is Adv/Disadv. to the Edge?
Like a very simple version of that system. No modifiers just roll 2d20 and either take the lowest or highest. No stacking and Adv. cancels a Dis. independent of the number of each - e.g. 2 x Adv. is still cancelled by 1 x Dis. Simple and quick.
The consequence is a lot of the time the modifiers (stats/class etc) never change making play very fast and character sheets don't end up with multiple lines of 'if I attack with feat A, feat B, feat C, two weapons' or worse players trying to quickly work out 5 or 6 attacks and the correct modifiers on the fly as I have had players do in 3.5e/PF.
S.
From my personal experience advantage is quite good but disadvantage makes succeeding on anything almost impossible. Maybe it's just the spread of my and six out of seven members of my D&D/PF group dice rolls.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I take it back about 5e doing anything original. IT doesn't even have that now and it's less interesting than that edge system.
Why does it have to be original? Why can't it be taking the best bits of the last 39 years and make a game? 4e was FULL of original ideas and it wasn't as well received as WotC had hoped - hence Pathfinder was born and we are play testing D&DN.
My current take on D&DN is 2e feel with a d20-lite mechanics. My personal opinion is that we have a 400 pound-mechanic Gorilla d20 game called Pathfinder, WotC don't need to release another on the market.
@kmal2t => Can I ask what you don't get out of the current Pathfinder game that you think D&DN should have? This isn't a trap question, honesty where does Pathfinder fail for you?
For me Pathfinder fails to be simple fun, its brain wrecking and at times amazingly frustrating. Combats take a long time and require a battle mat to truly carry out. I'll play in a game but I hate GMing it. D&DN to date lets me DM again without thinking the players are out to get me - as in personally find gaps in my System Mastery to exploit.
S.
From my personal experience advantage is quite good but disadvantage makes succeeding on anything almost impossible. Maybe it's just the spread of my and six out of seven members of my D&D/PF group dice rolls.
I think it's more likely due to where the DM or the adventure is setting DCs (or alternatively just a function of perception).
If you need to roll a 16 to succeed in some task (for example) granting advantage improves your chances by about 20% (so it's now equivalent to you needing to roll a 12 on a single d20) and disadvantage decreases it by the same percentage (ie it's now approximately equivalent to needing to roll a 20 on a single d20). This would presumably feel like advantage being quite good but disadvantage making things almost impossible.
If you were in the habit of setting tasks such that you needed a 6 to succeed you'd probably find the opposite (ie that advantage made succeeding at a task almost a certainty whereas disadvantage granted a noticeable penalty whilst still making it interesting.
I suspect that, should it become implemented, there will need to be quite a bit of thought put into where DCs should generally be set. It's likely to require quite a profound shift in thinking when it comes to encounter design, in my opinion.
From my personal experience advantage is quite good but disadvantage makes succeeding on anything almost impossible. Maybe it's just the spread of my and six out of seven members of my D&D/PF group dice rolls.I think it's more likely due to where the DM or the adventure is setting DCs (or alternatively just a function of perception).
If you need to roll a 16 to succeed in some task (for example) granting advantage improves your chances by about 20% (so it's now equivalent to you needing to roll a 12 on a single d20) and disadvantage decreases it by the same percentage (ie it's now approximately equivalent to needing to roll a 20 on a single d20). This would presumably feel like advantage being quite good but disadvantage making things almost impossible.
If you were in the habit of setting tasks such that you needed a 6 to succeed you'd probably find the opposite (ie that advantage made succeeding at a task almost a certainty whereas disadvantage granted a noticeable penalty whilst still making it interesting.
I suspect that, should it become implemented, there will need to be quite a bit of thought put into where DCs should generally be set. It's likely to require quite a profound shift in thinking when it comes to encounter design, in my opinion.
Except that needing a 12 vs needing a 16 means you are about twice as likely to succeed ( 45% vs 25%) and needing a 20 vs needing a 16 means you are only 1/5 as likely to succeed ( 25% vs 5% ) . So having advantage makes you twice as good, but having disadvantage doesn't make you twice as bad it makes you 5 times worse.
This is a significant point of varying chances of success. If you need to roll a 19 to succeed getting a 1 point penalty halves you chance of success. It is equivalent of getting a 4 point penalty when you need a 13 to succeed.
But the point you make is valid ( as it ever was in no advantage / disadvantage systems) the relevant issue is getting the DC right. If the system was +4/-4instead of roll 2d20 having disadvantage on a roll where you needed a 16 would be massive and having advantage would be good but not great.
For me personally, BA is the one hope DDN has of getting me to try it out.If they keep the bounded accuracy stuff that's, if not original, at least different.
The BA is the most appealing thing in DDN for me, the possibility of still being able to valuably participate in melee even if you aren't the melee specialist and of a high level character being able to be effected by a group of low level monsters is key.
For mine the over specialization of roles, rules mastery and the just add more plusses to make you better is where 3e went wrong & Pathfinder sadly just went further down the path.
I currently prefer Savage Worlds where as characters advance they get more tricks, more breadth but generally not specialized in their own niche that no-one else can enter. If DDN brings that approach I will be very happy.
I guess I take it back about 5e doing anything original. IT doesn't even have that now and it's less interesting than that edge system.Why does it have to be original? Why can't it be taking the best bits of the last 39 years and make a game? 4e was FULL of original ideas and it wasn't as well received as WotC had hoped - hence Pathfinder was born and we are play testing D&DN.
My current take on D&DN is 2e feel with a d20-lite mechanics. My personal opinion is that we have a 400 pound-mechanic Gorilla d20 game called Pathfinder, WotC don't need to release another on the market.
@kmal2t => Can I ask what you don't get out of the current Pathfinder game that you think D&DN should have? This isn't a trap question, honesty where does Pathfinder fail for you?
For me Pathfinder fails to be simple fun, its brain wrecking and at times amazingly frustrating. Combats take a long time and require a battle mat to truly carry out. I'll play in a game but I hate GMing it. D&DN to date lets me DM again without thinking the players are out to get me - as in personally find gaps in my System Mastery to exploit.
S.
Because I don't need to buy their $40+ books to relive old versions. I could play PF or get a 2e book. If you want to make a new version you need to give a good reason to buy it that makes me and everyone else not just play PF
I'll play a number of systems but I'm not just going to play a new version of 2e that so far I've seen really adds nothing of value I couldn't do with 5 mins of houseruling.
I read your post and one question popped into my mind. Why did you switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder? 2E to 3.x was a significant change, 3.5 to PF, not so much.
I'm with kmal2t in that D&D:Next needs to bring something to the table for me to even look at it in the stores. Being a pretty rehashed retro-clone is not going to pull in everyone under the tent as was their initial design statment.
I also "switched" to Pathfinder because it's free. Were I required to buy any of their books besides the Adventure Paths, no I'd be sticking with v3.5 but because of the OGL I can have my cake and eat it too.
Being original is important to some degree, but at the same time, they can't just abandon what worked in the past for the sake of being original and different. To me, a far greater concern is whether or not the system as a whole work as intended. 4E had some really great ideas, but it also had a lot of bad ones, and the overall structure of the system was such that it was blatantly obvious which were the well designed ones and which ones weren't. 3.x/PF on the other hand, for all of it's flaws works more or less as intended; there are a handful of issues that everyone can agree on as being a problem, but most of the perceived problems were spread out over the system as a whole rather than any one component of it.
Because of this, the flaws didn't have as big of an impact overall, since any given group could simply skip over the offending part and enjoy the rest of the experience whereas in 4E, skipping over any of the few official systems made the system even more DM centric to the point that it became way too swingy for my tastes. 3.5 could be run by a mediocre, or even poor, DM, and the experience, while nothing to write home about, could usually still be enjoyable enough for the time spent. 4E's highs were really high, but a mediocre or poor DM could just as easily end up with a really, really bad session that no one really got any enjoyment at all out of. How Next handles this is going to have a major impact on how well received it ultimately is.
3.5 could be run by a mediocre, or even poor, DM, and the experience, while nothing to write home about, could usually still be enjoyable enough for the time spent. 4E's highs were really high, but a mediocre or poor DM could just as easily end up with a really, really bad session that no one really got any enjoyment at all out of.
I'm often struck by the vast difference in "what people want out of a game". I have the polar opposite view to this. No doubt what I think constitutes a "poor DM" is quite different from what you do.
3.5 could be run by a mediocre, or even poor, DM, and the experience, while nothing to write home about, could usually still be enjoyable enough for the time spent. 4E's highs were really high, but a mediocre or poor DM could just as easily end up with a really, really bad session that no one really got any enjoyment at all out of.I'm often struck by the vast difference in "what people want out of a game". I have the polar opposite view to this. No doubt what I think constitutes a "poor DM" is quite different from what you do.
Possibly. All I know is that I had very few truly unsalvageable 3.5 gaming sessions that weren't clearly player interaction related, while for 4E, it tended to be really good or a complete waste of time. Maybe now that more DMs have gotten used to running it, the experience would be different, but I suspect that wide range of potential experiences did nothing to help 4E. Getting that really positive high seemed just as elusive, and whereas 3.5 had a certain minimum experience one could experience based on using the rules as written as a common ground, 4E had no bottom and no way to create a common ground that would help keep potential difficulties turning the entire experience sour.
4E's a great system for running amongst friends running really long term campaigns, but for random groups or organized play, the basic rules lacked the cohesiveness required to successfully span multiple DMs. That is something that Next is going to have to be aware of, and they are really going to have to hit that very small sweet spot where rules cohesiveness and imagination meet if they want it to be successful. I wish them luck in doing so, but it's a tall order for the best of game developers, and I am not sure that in the RPG field that WoTC really holds that position anymore. Even if they do, it's a crowded enough field that Next is really going to have to have something that literally pops out at the player and DM alike. For all that I've seen some interesting stuff about the play tests, I don't think I've seen anything individually that meets that level of pure wow, and I continue to have my doubts about the system as a whole being able to reach it. It will be interesting to see if the final product can find that balance between 4E and 3.x/PF. Earlier editions seemed to be able to do so with at least some success; WoTC has yet to reach that same level of overall balance during their management of the brand, and that worries me a bit.
|
|
I think everyone agrees that new be default doesn't mean good. I find D&DN to be rather new when compared to 1e/2e but not so new compared to the d20 system. For someone who had only played 4e it would be completely new. Vantage point matters in this case.
For me D&DN looks rather new, the saving throws, the new combat progressions, way spells like interchangeable slots, expertise dice, adv./dis. etc. I like the way it from the outside looks like a classic car, but lift the hood and we fine a very modern sleek engine. As of the latest play test it allows me to tell the stories I like to tell better than 3e/4e/PF - I am a 'story telling' DM where physical combats, while exciting, rarely make up a focus of my campaigns. Likely stems from my time playing 'old school' White Wolf games (well except Werewolf...).
So for me the new is I can once again play the type of D&D I like but get to use the learning's of the last 13 years in terms of stream lined d20 mechanics. D&DN is my cake I get to have and eat. Well until the crunch-bridge at WotC release a playtest that requires 3D printed play environments that only suit 14" figures to play any combats 'devolving' D&D into a Skirmish Tabletop Wargame (again). I say devolving as D&D was originally Gygax's attempt to make a skirmish game that moved away from the tabletop and into the mind. I guess that is why (and grognards will beat me now) I liked 2e so much, it seemed the logical next step in removing tabletop elements from the D&D RPG. And then there was 3e, hmmmm, followed by 3.5e... Good one guys.
So what I mean by D&DN = 2e isn't I find them mechanically similar just they are played in the same fashion. I personally am very comfortable with that play style.
Ultimately we will all decide if we like the 'new' D&D and vote with our wallets. Until the 'miniatures boardgame'* element reenters D&DN they have my vote.
S.
* I would be over the moon if they added a optional section to cover miniature battles, just not core rules. Like 'classic' Battletech where it was designed for Hex-play but they had an Inches-play optional section.