Opinions on DnD Next


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post and the replies to it/quoting it and so on. We welcome all kinds of gamers to paizo.com, and personal insults like this aren't productive.


I ordered the 5E Player's Guide from Amazon cause it was cheap ($30) and I'm a collector of RPGs (My shelves are full of wonders) but I don't know if I'm going to really get into the game.

Part of it is going to come down to what WoTC plans as far as releases go. If they are expecting people to buy a high end hardcover book every month or two, I'm out. IF they focus on smaller cheaper things the way Paizo has then I may be a little more agreeable. For the most part though me and my group and reallyt happy with Pathfinder. The game is pretty much where we want it.

5e kind of feels like they hit a Dead end with 4E, backed the truck up all the way to 2nd edition and then went down a side road instead of moving up to 3rd.

It doesn't look like a bad game It just doesn't seem like the one me and my friends want to play.


Greylurker wrote:

I ordered the 5E Player's Guide from Amazon cause it was cheap ($30) and I'm a collector of RPGs (My shelves are full of wonders) but I don't know if I'm going to really get into the game.

Part of it is going to come down to what WoTC plans as far as releases go. If they are expecting people to buy a high end hardcover book every month or two, I'm out. IF they focus on smaller cheaper things the way Paizo has then I may be a little more agreeable. For the most part though me and my group and reallyt happy with Pathfinder. The game is pretty much where we want it.

5e kind of feels like they hit a Dead end with 4E, backed the truck up all the way to 2nd edition and then went down a side road instead of moving up to 3rd.

It doesn't look like a bad game It just doesn't seem like the one me and my friends want to play.

I can sympathize. On one hand, I don't think it's a terrible game. I don't think it's design is flawed or overly un-balanced. I think they strove for the BEST game they could while adhering to people with TOTALLY different approaches to the game. So you have decisions like keeping magical items super-rare and rather....."meh" overall, something older fans like because they hate the "magic shoppe of 3E - 4E games." But then you have things like Hit Die healing and Second Wind which give nods to inspiration / non-magical healing, something that modern-gamers tend to like that older players don't.

So from my perspective, it's the sort of game you see that's compromised of a committee. It's like they sat down with the leaders of various editions and got ALL their ideas, kept the ones the majority of them liked (A class-based, medieval fantasy RPG that uses the d20 for a resolution mechanic) and then fought for EVERYTHING else. In some places, compromises were made and in others one side got the better deal. Since it's release there have been people who didn't like 4E say there's too much of it in D&D:Next and there have been 4E fans who say nothing relevant from 4E made it into D&D:Next. Then there are some who find that it's the BEST system they've played yet.

For me, it basically comes down to this: What does D&D-Next do that other systems don't? I've struggled with that question since 2012 when they announced they were in the process of creating a new edition. And through ALL the playtests I've run and the games we've played, I still cannot answer it well enough.

For one thing, it doesn't do high-action, cinematic fantasy as 4E does. It's not combat-focused enough that gives any significance to my in-combat decisions. I'm not weighing the options I have of using an Encounter power vs. an At-Will or Daily NOR does it have the tactical depth in ally support 4E does.

For another thing, it doesn't scratch the character-creation mini game that is v3.5 and Pathfinder. I think it tries, but it fails to accomplish it. With v3.5 and Pathfinder you simply build the character you want and the mechanics fuel that to a literal degree. The amount of customization that both v3.5 and PF have blows 5E out of the water. And especially when you look at PF's archtypes or v3.5's alternate class features, it's difficult NOT to be able to build ANY character you can imagine (it's getting it to work well that seems to be the biggest problem).

So what's left? I think it comes down to speed and ease of play. While I still love v3.5 and PF and 4E they're all pretty robust and cumbersome when it comes to the rules (4E, less so than v3.5). The easy resolution system of 5E makes adjudication simple and quick. Advantage/Disadvantage is FAR easier to implement than the 20+ different modifiers that PF and 3.5 have AND it's easier to track than the mind-numbing amount of "End of your Next turn" powers of 4E. And of course the numbers have been paired down significantly. No more +33 to hit, 144 damage per round. No more ACs reaching the 50's. No more DC saves of 28. No more 2,550 HP for monsters. No more "It grapples you and.....you lose" situations. Not to mention combat is quicker, meaning you get more in over the course of an adventure.

Is this enough material to scratch an itch that neither v3.5/PF or 4E can? It's hard to say. I've come to really enjoy E6 as a mini-system. For those who aren't aware of what E6 is, it's basically v3.5 that stops leveling at 6th level and everything else afterwards is just additional feats. PF has a version called E7 but you could use any level to stop at and just use feats afterwards. I'm not sure if D&D:Next can fill this role of E6, especially when SO much out there is geared towards this tier of play for v3.5 and PF but who knows?

Shadow Lodge

I'll say one thing in defense of 5e. Its still early in the release to complain about lack of option in building characters since APG didnt come out until a year after the CRB was released and the Complete books from 3.5 took longer I think (dont remember).

That being said, I'm still not liking the magic system all that much in 5e. Protection from Energy is still a 3rd level spell but only give you resistance(half damage only) to one energy and is concentration, so no casting 2 or 3 spells to portect someone from more then one energy attack, and its a concentration spell as all buff spells are.

In my opinion this spell was nerfed BIG TIME. As it is I'd have made it second level spell at most.

What I do like is that named spells are back, Otto's, Mordenkainen's, Bigsby's, etc.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

I'll say one thing in defense of 5e. Its still early in the release to complain about lack of option in building characters since APG didnt come out until a year after the CRB was released and the Complete books from 3.5 took longer I think (dont remember).

That being said, I'm still not liking the magic system all that much in 5e. Protection from Energy is still a 3rd level spell but only give you resistance(half damage only) to one energy and is concentration, so no casting 2 or 3 spells to portect someone from more then one energy attack, and its a concentration spell as all buff spells are.

In my opinion this spell was nerfed BIG TIME. As it is I'd have made it second level spell at most.

What I do like is that named spells are back, Otto's, Mordenkainen's, Bigsby's, etc.

More than one caster could always put up a different Protection from Energy spell on the same target. Also, the spell Fire Shield doesn't require concentration and can give fire or cold resistance. So not all buff spells are concentration.

You can get complete immunity to energy from Otiluke's Resilient Sphere.

Most of the spells don't work the same as 3rd edition. Some are more powerful and some are weaker. 5th edition Protection from Energy takes the place of 3rd edition's Protection from Energy and Resist Energy and basically sits right between them in terms of power.

Shadow Lodge

dariusu wrote:


5th edition Protection from Energy takes the place of 3rd edition's Protection from Energy and Resist Energy and basically sits right between them in terms of power.

I dont agree on this. Resist Energy and especially Protection from energy could negate all damage, so to me 5e PfE is alot weaker then even 1e and 2e versions of Resist Energy(admittedly who had access to what spells was more limited back then).

Edit: Ok I was wrong. Except for the whole concentration thing, 5e Protection from Energy is equal to 1e Resist Cold (1st lv spell) and 1e Resist Fire (2nd lv spell).


I think that 5E Prot Energy is definitely weaker than the sort of things you could do in 3.5 - but for me, at least, that's not a bad thing.

I like that you've got spells that can reliably protect you from energy damage (by dropping it in half), but that stopping it entirely is much more difficult (as opposed to 3.5 Resist Energy, which could trivialize most energy-based encounters).

Similarly, I like the idea of buffs being a much more precious resource, rather than all the casters just burning half their spell lists on pumping everyones AC and Saves, and giving protection vs all incoming energy damage and immunity vs poison, fear, etc.

Shadow Lodge

See I never had an issue with spellcasters being powerful, they throw magic around!!! They should be more powerful then the guys swinging pointy sticks. Doesnt mean that the pointy stick weilder dont have a place in the game.


Diffan wrote:
For me, it basically comes down to this: What does D&D-Next do that other systems don't? I've struggled with that question since 2012 when they announced they were in the process of creating a new edition. And through ALL the playtests I've run and the games we've played, I still cannot answer it well enough.

Wow, that really hits it on the nose. I think that's what I'm actually REALLY struggling with right now as well.

For modern systems I have PF, I still have 4e, and I have C&C. For simplicity, C&C already has it covered...

I really can't seem to figure what it offers that other systems currently do not...at least for me. Ironically, I've been playing it for my RPG (group has chosen to play it right now) for the past two weeks.


I find that the more I think about it, the less I like the "Advantage and Disadvantage" systems

As, for me, it once again shifts the emphasis from

The playing of the game is fun, and it is in the fun you have that defines "winning or losing"

to

Winning is when you roll well


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

I find that the more I think about it, the less I like the "Advantage and Disadvantage" systems

As, for me, it once again shifts the emphasis from

The playing of the game is fun, and it is in the fun you have that defines "winning or losing"

to

Winning is when you roll well

Why do you feel that using advantage/disadvantage shifts the feel of the game away from having fun and towards winning more than using a half-dozen or more simultaneous minor buffs and debuffs instead?

For me, I like the idea of advantage/disadvantage in 5e as a much simpler way of modeling all the small minor benefits and penalties characters in other versions of D&D and Pathfinder face. Especially at high levels, the sheer number of buffs, debuffs, situational modifiers, environmental factors, and special feats and abilities makes a pretty big pile of modifiers that constantly changes. Since 5e has the goal of bounded accuracy I think their use of advantage/disadvantage is a pretty good way of avoiding number creep with a host of situational modifiers.

Scarab Sages

I liked the idea of advantage/disadvantage early on in the playtests, but now not as much. I foresee it being a big argument generator, with players trying to undercut disadvantage for their own character by claiming something tenuous as giving advantage to cancel it out (and the reverse for enemies). Time will tell.


Unless you have a class ability/feat/background/race ability that grants advantage you don't get unless the GM determines it. So far it hasn't been an issue in my group even when I've asked for a disadvantaged roll.

Scarab Sages

"unless the GM determines it"

I see player lobbying of the DM in making this determination, leading to arguments. Not everybody, not all the time. But not an insignificant amount either.


I come from a place of very old school D&D, the vast range of modifiers never sat very well with me in the first place. So, to ask why does Advantage/Disadvange "add" to the frustration, my answer is simply, because it "adds" to the frustration


Terquem wrote:
I come from a place of very old school D&D, the vast range of modifiers never sat very well with me in the first place. So, to ask why does Advantage/Disadvange "add" to the frustration, my answer is simply, because it "adds" to the frustration

Fair enough, emotional responses are emotional responses and I'm certainly not going to try and change yours. Just wanted to see your reasoning in case there was something to it I could take away and think about while fully developing my own opinion. Thanks for your reply!

Shadow Lodge

I dont know if this is good or bad, but one thing I've noticed about rules lite systems is that there are a mast amount of table variances.


I'm pretty sure that's why 5th has all the optional mechanics that it does. The DMG will have more. The MM has several surrounding monsters as PC and the various templates. TONS of options all around. Will it work for everyone? No. I'd wager if you can't put together a game you can at least be mostly happy with, then it's just not the system for you and you should move on.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Unfortunately so many people just can't stand when something isn't for them, so they want the creators to change it to be more what they want. Not saying that is the thought process of anyone in this thread, but I have come across so many people who don't like something so they want it changed to be more like what they are used to. I will admit to thinking such thoughts at times, but they I myself just move on.

If you don't like the changes with a new edition, just stick with an older one. Or just move on to something else. I am sure that if Paizo hadn't been making Adventure Paths, and WotC had some sort of 3PP friendly thing like the OGL for 4th edition, those who enjoyed 3rd edition and didn't like what was changed, they would have had to stick with 3rd edition (if Paizo had gone ahead into 4th edition instead of taking James Jacobs' house rules and published them).

5th edition D&D won't be for everyone, which is not a crime. 4th edition wasn't for everyone and that was OK (I think WotC shot themselves in the foot with how they handled it...). Pathfinder isn't for everyone, 3rd edition wasn't, 3.5 wasn't, 2nd edition wasn't, even 1st edition wasn't for everyone.


The gripe I've seen about the older editions is that they're not actively developed. That's also the big grip about sticking with Pathfinder as it is now if Paizo does a new version. I'm curious how that matters regardless of edition. Have those folks really exhausted all the adventures each system has to offer?

I've been dedicated to Pathfinder for the past 3 years exclusively and lesser so back to beta. I haven't done even half their APs or one off modules and next to none of the PFS seasons.

It makes me scratch my head. Can they only ever have the latest and greatest? That's honestly where I put them mentally, and that's just entitlement to which I give zero credence.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
If you don't like the changes with a new edition, just stick with an older one. Or just move on to something else.

Or roll up your sleeves and make changes to the game to make it better suit the game you want to play. The DMG may be just the ticket to help people do this easier and shed the need to play the rules as written. It's far too early to write off the game (or write it off for someone) until we've got that book.


Buri wrote:

The gripe I've seen about the older editions is that they're not actively developed. That's also the big grip about sticking with Pathfinder as it is now if Paizo does a new version. I'm curious how that matters regardless of edition. Have those folks really exhausted all the adventures each system has to offer?

I've been dedicated to Pathfinder for the past 3 years exclusively and lesser so back to beta. I haven't done even half their APs or one off modules and next to none of the PFS seasons.

It makes me scratch my head. Can they only ever have the latest and greatest? That's honestly where I put them mentally, and that's just entitlement to which I give zero credence.

I think part of the issue is that if a system is no longer actively supported, it starts losing presence in game stores, and more and more players (especially new players who were not around when game system X was around) are not interested in playing it. So it become tougher to track down material and tougher to get players.

I think I see complaints here monthly that certain GMs/Players love a certain edition (often 2E or 1E, but even 3.5 as well), but never get to play it because their friends are not interested in that version, or they can't find local players.

Also people just like new options...it gets them excited about the game. Without those new options, people lose interest, which speeds up the problem above. And a lot of players are really only interested in certain classes and themes: they may only be interested in a small subset of the already published material, and want more material closer to what they are interested in.

So yeah, I do think think it's a valid complaint, although perhaps slightly less valid in the age of the internet. I don't see it as player entitlement.


Adjule wrote:

Unfortunately so many people just can't stand when something isn't for them, so they want the creators to change it to be more what they want. Not saying that is the thought process of anyone in this thread, but I have come across so many people who don't like something so they want it changed to be more like what they are used to. I will admit to thinking such thoughts at times, but they I myself just move on.

If you don't like the changes with a new edition, just stick with an older one. Or just move on to something else. I am sure that if Paizo hadn't been making Adventure Paths, and WotC had some sort of 3PP friendly thing like the OGL for 4th edition, those who enjoyed 3rd edition and didn't like what was changed, they would have had to stick with 3rd edition (if Paizo had gone ahead into 4th edition instead of taking James Jacobs' house rules and published them).

5th edition D&D won't be for everyone, which is not a crime. 4th edition wasn't for everyone and that was OK (I think WotC shot themselves in the foot with how they handled it...). Pathfinder isn't for everyone, 3rd edition wasn't, 3.5 wasn't, 2nd edition wasn't, even 1st edition wasn't for everyone.

You may also like some things about one edition and dislike some things about it and really want to be able to play a version with the things you like, but not the things you don't like.

I don't think anyone is saying "I'm going to play 5E, but I need it to be just like PF." Or any other edition.


Diffan wrote:
For me, it basically comes down to this: What does D&D-Next do that other systems don't? I've struggled with that question since 2012 when they announced they were in the process of creating a new edition. And through ALL the playtests I've run and the games we've played, I still cannot answer it well enough.

So far, the game offers sufficient answers. It's a version of D&D that includes some elements of recent editions while having the speed and openness of 1e/2e.

As much as I love Pathfinder, having a less dense option is quite attractive. There may be other games in that niche like C&C, but I only just got the PH for that via the reprint Kickstarter so it doesn't have much of a headstart against 5e with me. And 5e has, so far, been easier to get into. Plus, 5e is virtually guaranteed to have a much bigger network of players.


Bill Dunn wrote:
As much as I love Pathfinder, having a less dense option is quite attractive. There may be other games in that niche like C&C, but I only just got the PH for that via the reprint Kickstarter so it doesn't have much of a headstart against 5e with me. And 5e has, so far, been easier to get into. Plus, 5e is virtually guaranteed to have a much bigger network of players.

Different strokes for different folks I suppose. That is one of the reasons why I like 3.5/Pathfinder because of all of the different options. When I can I play in 2Ed games as I liked that iteration of D&D (the first one I played with) but I prefer 3.5. I did pick up the 5E book and I will be playing in a 5E PBP but I would probably not switch over to 5E as a GM.


Buri wrote:
The gripe I've seen about the older editions is that they're not actively developed. That's also the big grip about sticking with Pathfinder as it is now if Paizo does a new version. I'm curious how that matters regardless of edition. Have those folks really exhausted all the adventures each system has to offer?

Totally agree, not to mention literally hundreds of issues of Dungeon magazine adventures with 2E/3E/3.5 adventures and adventure paths.

For as long as I have run 3.5, at least half of the material I have used was 2Ed modules and sourcebooks converted to 3.5. As much as I find the Pathfinder modules and adventure paths appealing there is so much source material from older editions that own that I still have not and probably will never get to run.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think people are misunderstanding what I meant. When I said what I did, I didn't mean houseruling a system to be more like what you would play. I meant people saying "I don't like this and want the creators to remove it from the game so it can be more like what I am used to". House ruling an edition is fine. It's going to a forum (official or fan-site) and saying this version of that game is crap and needs to be more like this other version.

Not every version of something will be for everyone. Yes, it can be difficult to find players for older versions of D&D. But people need to realize that not everything that came before is crap by default because it isn't the newest; just like not every new version of something is better by default because it is new.

People are silly for automatically writing something off because it isn't the "new and now". Older versions of D&D are still fun, and I could see myself playing some of it (either as DM or player if someone offered to run). Older versions of video games are still fun as well (I still play NES and Playstation 1 games despite being 16+ years old). But I understand that's just how people are conditioned now. If it is old, it is bad; if it is new, it is great, and those that like the old have clouded nostalgia vision.

Go to roll20.net or another online tabletop site, and there will be people who would love to play an older version. Hell, there was even a 2nd edition pbp thread on this very messageboard that was pretty damn active (whether it lasted long or not, I have no clue) and from what I saw it didn't have room for everyone who was interested. You may have to go online to find players that would play the old stuff, but they are out there.

Don't take from this post that I believe everything that came before is better than what is new and now. That's not what I am saying. Just having the new=great and old=crap view is a terrible view, but so many have it.


Buri wrote:

The gripe I've seen about the older editions is that they're not actively developed. That's also the big grip about sticking with Pathfinder as it is now if Paizo does a new version. I'm curious how that matters regardless of edition. Have those folks really exhausted all the adventures each system has to offer?

I've been dedicated to Pathfinder for the past 3 years exclusively and lesser so back to beta. I haven't done even half their APs or one off modules and next to none of the PFS seasons.

It makes me scratch my head. Can they only ever have the latest and greatest? That's honestly where I put them mentally, and that's just entitlement to which I give zero credence.

I've got more gaming material than I'm ever going to need - that's not why I like support material.

If the system I'm playing has regular output then it helps keep me excited by and engaged with it.

I've kind of compromised at the moment - I play other games but base them all in Golarion using Paizo adventures. Nonetheless, in my perfect world, Paizo's APs would all be written for Swords and Wizardry (even though it wouldnt actually change what I do on Wednesday nights at all - I'd keep running the same adventures I do now with the same ruleset).

I dont really see that as entitlement - I'm not making any demands, just noticing that I prefer it when a game is actively supported.


Steve Geddes wrote:


in my perfect world, Paizo's APs would all be written for Swords and Wizardry (even though it wouldnt actually change what I do on Wednesday nights at all - I'd keep running the same adventures I do now with the same ruleset).

What would happen if you ran Paizo AP's monsters Pathfinder style, unconverted, but the rest of the rules were Swords and Wizardry? Would there be a big power level difference between PCs and Monsters?


I'm not sure - I find it very easy to convert PF monsters to S&W, I just make sure the "key feature" of the monster is translated. At higher levels you'd have to do something about the hit points, over 100hp is enormous in S&W.

Shadow Lodge

Between Monstrosities, Tome of Horrors Complete, Tome of Horrors 4, and d20swsrd.com; I'd probably be more likely to substitute than convert.

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Opinions on DnD Next All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.