Explain the excitement over D&D Next


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I've tried, but I simply can't get over the "meh" feeling over D&D Next. Honestly, this is the first edition of D&D I really just can't get into. I can't see what it actually offers me that I want.

Other editions have gotten me excited. OD&D...well, that was my first intro via some friends...and it just had that magical thing that came with it that caught my imagination.

AD&D is the only one I can't say struck me right off the bat, but I think that's because most of it was a gradual change from OD&D to AD&D, with many of the OD&D rules being incorporated in AD&D as we continued play.

However, AD&D was the staple and basically replaced OD&D, in many ways for us they were the same game, but AD&D was easier in access then supplements and everything else.

Didn't start the B/X thing when it first came out, didn't even try B/X at first, but did try the Basic with BECMI. That blew me away with the simplicity and yet fullness of the game. Went on with the entire BECMI line. Loved it.

When 2e came out, loved the corebooks with the art, and how it had so many things listed as options. Also liked the THAC0, believe it or not, as it seemed such a simple and easy item for us.

When 3e and especially 3.5 came out, it was a completely different game. IT was a new game, but that wasn't what really got me. With 3e it was the idea of quick advancement (like super fast compared to our 2e games) and the ability to multiclass so vastly. Of course, those same items with M/C became somewhat of a turn off with optimizers popping up trying to abuse the system, and sometimes the CR system was crazy and hard to figure out without the book or table printed outright in front of you (Eventually just went with a CRx300 = XP route instead of trying to figure it out each time).

However, with 3.5 it became more of a boardgame in many ways with how heavily minis were used. Since I'm big into boardgames, that became a major aspect of our play in combat.

Obviously if we were that big into boardgame play, 4e was also a major hit. It took many of the things that 3.5 had but simplified some of it with D20. Loved it at first. They also solved the M/C abuse in many ways, at least at the first two PHB's. However, even as I loved it at first, the added powers got to be a pain to keep track of after the lower levels. With all the extra powers to keep track of as a DM, and how often they were or were not used, it actually was harder to keep track of players characters than any other edition.

Then along came PF, and with their beginner box, I got absolutely excited over the game. It ramped up stuff from 3.5, but at the same time seemed new and shiny. With the new AP's coming out, I really enjoy the modules and stories.

However, with 5e, I just can't get into it. I have the older editions if I want simplicity, and the PF beginner box rules give me everything as a middle ground between full PF and a more simple game.

Right now I just can't see what 5e offers me. Every other edition has had something, and I see all those getting excited over 5e and enthusiastic. I know others must see something in it, but I can't see that it offers anything that the older editions didn't already offer.

Can you guys who are really going out and getting into 5e explain why you are so excited about it and what it is offering that should get me or others excited?

Thanks

Sovereign Court

I am still wait and see about 5E it needs some legs before I jump in. Here is my list of exciting features though:
Modularity
Bounded accuracy
No assumed WBL


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I doubt it's a common position, but for me it's because I'm hoping to see a rules-light system with a lot of support.

I've never got excited about a system because of the system - it's always about the supplements/adventures/accessories. One of the problems with rules-light systems is that it's hard to get lots of supplements for them (at least where I live). The various gaming shops generally carry everything for D&D and Pathfinder, then bits and pieces of other systems - they dont usually carry everything for those others though.

For the last several years, that's meant that most of my supplemental material (which is my favorite) has been skewed towards rules-heavy systems. I still enjoy them, but I have more work to actually use them.


I think the simplification for 5e is great for those who weren't around for the older editions. I was three when 2nd edition was released. Sure, I can get a few of the books from my local gaming store, but they're all visibly worn so they aren't being newly printed unlike the full retinue of mint 3.5 books I can get. I love the simplicity because it's the first I've encountered it in the space I enjoy: D&D/PF.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I doubt it's a common position, but for me it's because I'm hoping to see a rules-light system with a lot of support.

This is definitely a factor in it for me.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not all that excited over the new edition either. I switched over to 2nd edition about a year ago, and now that the three core 2nd edition books have been reprinted, it is much easier to get a copy of the rules...


Do bear in mind we're only looking at the Basic ruleset so far. There might be more to wow you when the PHB and DMG are out.

Personally, I'm excited for many of the same reasons others are: simpler rules/faster play. I'm pretty deep in the well of 3.x fatigue. Paizo is awesome in about every way imaginable, but Pathfinder's system still has a lot of kinks in it. That's not to say I think 5E is or will be perfect, but I think it is a little more conducive to a game that plays like an older edition. Would be nice to see quick play that didn't involve constant rules-referencing or calculus equations (an obvious exaggeration, in case someone's going to take that literally) every combat round.

Dark Archive

I'm pretty excited, I ran the starter set last weekend and it was the best bit of gaming round a table I have had in many a year. I plan to use 5e for face to face games and continue running Pathfinder for online games using fantasy grounds

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lots of options + ease of implementation is what I like about it.


My guess is this: You are used to playing Pathfinder these days; an assumption I'm making given how you're on the Pathfinder message boards.

D&D Next takes alot of feeling that was from the 3.5 era and reuses it, with some of that 4e flavor. So, if you've played 4e, it's chocolate that you've tasted before, wrapped up in a wrapper you've already seen before.

Basically; D&D Next is 3.5 + 4e, and since it is in it's embryo phase, it doesn't have the volume of content that either version does.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

Also,

Skills are tied to Backgrounds and Class now. Easier to individualize your character.

Feats allow you to 1-ability dip into another class' feature and robustly individualize your character without multi-classing.

Sub races, the class "paths", everything I've seen so far easily helps individualize your character.

I like these things. I think that the ways to do these things is far simpler and more elegant than ways that we've seen them done in the past. My mind is also full of ideas as to what I can do to further modify classes, races, and backgrounds in a way that tailors them to a specific campaign.

I won't go into why I wouldn't simply do it in some previous editions because I don't want to look like I'm bashing previous editions at all.

In fact, I'm seeing how easy it is to move ideas that I like form previous editions (and other games entirely) into 5E.

That's what has me the most excited. It's firing up my imagination and looks easy enough to figure out from the mechanical side of things.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isaac Daneil - I only disagree in that I also see a lot of ideas culled from 1st and 2nd edition. You're selling it short by saying that it only pulls from 3rd and 4th editions.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I can run the adventures I want in a world I like. I can use all of my 1E and 2E stuff easily again. I can also easily convert DCC RPG and LotFP RPG adventures and other OGL D20 fantasy. Heck, I even used 4E's Gloomwrought boxed set. D&D Next is a blast to play (we're up to 13th level so far) and when we convert I expect the enjoyment to continue.

Basically, running D&D Next feels like running AD&D 1E to me without the arcane and strange rules. In other words, for me, it is perfect. Lots of action, weird monsters, a world to build, and with much of the character options from later editions for the players to enjoy.

Here's an example. The PCs were 11th level and using a faulty teleport circle. They teleported to a sky island (floating rock in the sky) and the circle went dead. They were surrounded by 100 zombies who attacked in waves.

That combat was intense. Especially as the zombies were actually coffer corpses and about half of them stood back up after getting knocked down.

I can't see me DMing a combat like that in 3E or 4E. But it would have worked in 1E and now it works again in 5E.

The big boss fights that worked somewhat well in 3E and 4E now also work in 5E. For example a lich or dragon has special powers if attacked in its lair. The crypt or cave itself may rise up against intruders to protect the boss monster.

I like the flavor also. All my years of D&D knowledge work again. 4E could be frustrating because so much of that knowledge didn't work. 5E brings back the usefulness of that knowledge while still keeping the best innovations made in 4E that don't completely change the basics of D&D.

I find comfort in 20 levels, many races and classes to choose from, fireball being 3rd level, hex crawls, dungeon crawls, dragons being deadly. and clerics and wizards having different magic. I also like the warlock being added in, adapted from 3E and 4E. I like the dragonborn (from 3E and 4E) and the tiefling (2E but with 4E origin).

D&D 5E is fun. It is traditional. It is also modern with tie ins to other game types besides TRPGs. It also has several new rules with bounded accuracy and advantage/disadvantage being big ones but also backgrounds providing many skills and the roleplaying aspects of ideals, bonds, and flaws.

Lots of what happens in 5E is subtle. Spells not scaling by character level but by spell slot level is one. Bounded accuracy is another. Buff spells being curbed by concentration works. Feats (from 3E and 4E) are optional and magic items aren't built into the math. Character power being defined not by plusses to a d20 or a high AC but by class features and damage output is yet another.

5E was well playtested and runs so smooth that it actually, on the surface, looks bland and like every other edition. That is intentional. The real test is in how it plays. And it plays well, both for players and their characters, and for the DM and the world he or she is running and/or building.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie D. wrote:

I can run the adventures I want in a world I like. I can use all of my 1E and 2E stuff easily again. I can also easily convert DCC RPG and LotFP RPG adventures and other OGL D20 fantasy. Heck, I even used 4E's Gloomwrought boxed set. D&D Next is a blast to play (we're up to 13th level so far) and when we convert I expect the enjoyment to continue.

Basically, running D&D Next feels like running AD&D 1E to me without the arcane and strange rules. In other words, for me, it is perfect. Lots of action, weird monsters, a world to build, and with much of the character options from later editions for the players to enjoy.

Here's an example. The PCs were 11th level and using a faulty teleport circle. They teleported to a sky island (floating rock in the sky) and the circle went dead. They were surrounded by 100 zombies who attacked in waves.

That combat was intense. Especially as the zombies were actually coffer corpses and about half of them stood back up after getting knocked down.

I can't see me DMing a combat like that in 3E or 4E. But it would have worked in 1E and now it works again in 5E.

The big boss fights that worked somewhat well in 3E and 4E now also work in 5E. For example a lich or dragon has special powers if attacked in its lair. The crypt or cave itself may rise up against intruders to protect the boss monster.

I like the flavor also. All my years of D&D knowledge work again. 4E could be frustrating because so much of that knowledge didn't work. 5E brings back the usefulness of that knowledge while still keeping the best innovations made in 4E that don't completely change the basics of D&D.

I find comfort in 20 levels, many races and classes to choose from, fireball being 3rd level, hex crawls, dungeon crawls, dragons being deadly. and clerics and wizards having different magic. I also like the warlock being added in, adapted from 3E and 4E. I like the dragonborn (from 3E and 4E) and the tiefling (2E but with 4E origin).

D&D 5E is fun. It is traditional. It is also modern with...

Great post and exactly my feelings.

5e for me is a game that is played at the table, not on internet forums or with character building software. Trying to analyse its components misses it magic at the table.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Right now I just can't see what 5e offers me. Every other edition has had something, and I see all those getting excited over 5e and enthusiastic. I know others must see something in it, but I can't see that it offers anything that the older editions didn't already offer.

Can you guys who are really going out and getting into 5e explain why you are so excited about it and what it is offering that should get me or others excited?

Some of the reasons why I'm liking it so far:

• Ease of play - The first thing I look for in an RPG is how simple the basics are and what options do they cover. Looking at 3E, for example, I look at the Grappling or any other special attack/action rules and I just cringe. It's so heavily penalized that you need to be SUPER-tricked out to even have decent attempts at it. 4E somewhat simplified this and 5E continues that as well. Looking at things like modifiers, Next doesn't have all that many, and I feel that's an improvement over the plethora of "+" or "-" of 3E or "Until the end of your next turn" stuff of 4E. Simply put, your not doing lots of math to finish your turn.

• Combat - Whilst I love 4E and v3.5/PF, the combat can get a bit excessive. I know 4E is always pointed out as the HOURS long combat sessions (never experienced it though) but 3E is no better, especially at higher levels. 5E somewhat cuts this down dramatically. Now I'll grant that it doesn't have the interesting round-to-round options that 4E's powers emulate (yet, anyways) or 3E's hundreds of combat-based Feats but I think there not really needed since a player can just describe what he wants to attempt and the DM just looks at the DC chart and goes off that or it's often simply a Stat vs Stat opposed roll with little modification.

• Smaller Focus - Looking at the higher levels of both 3E/PF and 4E and you'll notice characters, monsters, and NPCs with just ridiculous numbers. Is that really necessary? What does that say about the rest of the world in comparison? For example, I just created a 14th level Swordsage for our v3.5 campaign and his AC is 31. That means he can literally go into any small village and do whatever he wants because the guards cannot even touch him because of the numbers. I find that to be really immersive-breaking. With D&D:Next, a 14th level Warrior is a scary dude, but even solo against the town guards he'd probably struggle and would eventually be brought down if there's enough of them.

• System Abuse - Lord knows that we'll eventually see things like DPR-Kings and other such Character_Optimization threads that go into the guts of the system to find the ULTIMATE combo-power build (and that's cool, I'm fine with people who love to system-craft, etc) but the extent it was done in 3E and 4E, I felt bordered on the absurd. Obviously there will be loopholes or RAW vs. RAI questions and debates because the game is created by people, who are not perfect. But with the toned down scope of the system and less emphasis on min/max character builds, I think there will be less emphasis on it.

• Specifics - A small list of things that, for me, make the game more interesting and easier to play than 3E or 4E:

- Movement broken up by feet allows people to move, attack, move with no special power or feat required.

- Opportunity Attacks aren't as broken in this edition as they were in 3E but still remain relative.

- No more differentiation between standard action / Full-round action. A fighter gets ALL of his attacks every round.

- Less focus on picking powers or feats to use and more emphasis on just describing what you want to do and the DM sets the DC based off of a chart.

- Less things to keep track of (4E's powers are notorious for this) AND less things that disrupt the flow of the game (again, immediate interrupt/reaction powers of 4E or Feats from 3E).

- Advantage/Disadvantage is something that's fairly simple to implement but is also dramatic when used in harry circumstances.

- Versatile weapons are actually versatile now, cutting out unnecessary "special/exotic" weapons like the Bastard sword.


Diffan wrote:
System Abuse - Lord knows that we'll eventually see things like DPR-Kings and other such Character_Optimization threads that go into the guts of the system to find the ULTIMATE combo-power build (and that's cool, I'm fine with people who love to system-craft, etc) but the extent it was done in 3E and 4E, I felt bordered on the absurd. Obviously there will be loopholes or RAW vs. RAI questions and debates because the game is created by people, who are not perfect. But with the toned down scope of the system and less emphasis on min/max character builds, I think there will be less emphasis on it.

This is of particualr import to me. Things are worded in a way that lets them be more easily understood and ruled upon.

There's very little gray area as to the general scope of the ability making it easy to spot violations and even giving you (the DM) the ability to more easily rationalize to your players why. That's been a pain point for me in PF. Often, you'll get an ability and RAW says something is legit and the player is right. Even though it doesn't feel right to you and you know it shouldn't 'actually work' there's nothing for you to point to in order to form a common basis to reason why or why not. You don't need to resort to fiat, mother may I, because I said so, and so on type exchanges to work through those issues. It's got a much more cooperative feel while keeping the DM in control of the setting and game, letting players do really cool and flavorful things without even threatening to break the system, and so on. It's great.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

I've tried, but I simply can't get over the "meh" feeling over D&D Next. Honestly, this is the first edition of D&D I really just can't get into. I can't see what it actually offers me that I want.

Other editions have gotten me excited. OD&D...well, that was my first intro via some friends...and it just had that magical thing that came with it that caught my imagination.

I think some of that is hindsight. It's easy to look back on a system that has been out or is no longer published, and identify all the great things about it. It's really hard to do that with 5E when all you have are the free basic rules and the starter set, and there really even hasn't been time to fully delve into the game. Really...it's all about comparing complete products with unfinished ones.

Right now I am not excited...I like 3E, and some of the 5E changes seem a bit weird or problematic.

But I am very curious, and will wait until more material is released to make a judgement. Already I feel like some of the marketing and content decisions I didn't like about 4E have been addressed. For instance, the Players handbook includes a wide variety of classes, and it doesn't feel like they are trying to milk content over multiple hardcovers that really should be kept in core. I am also looking forward to the monster manual...it sounds like they are trying to go with a more flavorful approach to monsters, and I disliked the 4E monster books because I felt every monster was reduced to just a block of stats, without really enough flavorful information to make me want to use them. Also, the Gencon announcements SHOULD provide a better picture of what sort of long term plan they have for the system, and what the current business plan is for publishing.


I think the thing that really bothers me about the newest edition of Dungeons & Dragons is that some people like it and some people don’t.

Now, when I started playing this game, I pretty much only hung out with other people who liked it, and occasionally ran into people who didn’t, but I didn’t concern myself very much with their opinions.

Then, a few decades later, I found I like being on the internet and participating in forum exchanges that are somewhat like a discussion (only I’m not sure who is and who is not being sincere).

So now, with this new edition, I find myself reading the opinions of those who don’t like it, far more than I ever would have thirty eight years ago, when I first played Palace of the Vampire Queen, using the OED&D rules, and it often leaves me feeling a bit sad, and bothered by the idea that people don’t like the new version of the game, and while some of them are nice about expressing why they don’t like it, there are some who feel the need to explain to others why they shouldn’t like it either, and why liking it in the way you do is wrong because you really don’t understand the game in the first place.

Liberty's Edge

Terquem wrote:

I think the thing that really bothers me about the newest edition of Dungeons & Dragons is that some people like it and some people don’t.

Now, when I started playing this game, I pretty much only hung out with other people who liked it, and occasionally ran into people who didn’t, but I didn’t concern myself very much with their opinions.

Then, a few decades later, I found I like being on the internet and participating in forum exchanges that are somewhat like a discussion (only I’m not sure who is and who is not being sincere).

So now, with this new edition, I find myself reading the opinions of those who don’t like it, far more than I ever would have thirty eight years ago, when I first played Palace of the Vampire Queen, using the OED&D rules, and it often leaves me feeling a bit sad, and bothered by the idea that people don’t like the new version of the game, and while some of them are nice about expressing why they don’t like it, there are some who feel the need to explain to others why they shouldn’t like it either, and why liking it in the way you do is wrong because you really don’t understand the game in the first place.

This discussion goes way, way back. At least this time around the discussions are mostly civil. Back when 3E went to 4E? Not so civil a lot of the time.

Sovereign Court

You should have seen the grognards when 3E came out. Those who didn't love it off the bat were terrible. So much venom.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:
You should have seen the grognards when 3E came out. Those who didn't love it off the bat were terrible. So much venom.

Especially from Gygax himself.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
Hama wrote:
You should have seen the grognards when 3E came out. Those who didn't love it off the bat were terrible. So much venom.
Especially from Gygax himself.

It is interesting how many things Gygax didn't like or thought were missing in 3E have changed in 5E. The game went back to exploration and roleplaying being added to combat as the three pillars of the game. Some dark elements are back in including assassins as well as tieflings. Group play is back with various rules for group exploration and skill checks.

Sovereign Court

Quote:
Some dark elements are back in including assassins as well as tieflings. Group play is back with various rules for group exploration and skill checks.

You do know that all this existed in 3E as well as 4E? It's not really back. It never went away.


Buri wrote:
Diffan wrote:
System Abuse - Lord knows that we'll eventually see things like DPR-Kings and other such Character_Optimization threads that go into the guts of the system to find the ULTIMATE combo-power build (and that's cool, I'm fine with people who love to system-craft, etc) but the extent it was done in 3E and 4E, I felt bordered on the absurd. Obviously there will be loopholes or RAW vs. RAI questions and debates because the game is created by people, who are not perfect. But with the toned down scope of the system and less emphasis on min/max character builds, I think there will be less emphasis on it.
This is of particualr import to me. Things are worded in a way that lets them be more easily understood and ruled upon.

I suspect that 5e will be just as thoroughly dissected by the CharOp forums as every WotC edition. (The only reason that I omit TSR editions is because they had the shelter of existing before the internet became a big thing.)

CharOpping is something that fans do because they enjoy doing it, regardless of an edition's relative merits or flaws. Not even 5e's 'rulings instead of rules' will make a difference, because there are still official rules that can be used as a point of common discussion. Every other edition has provided DMs the ability to overrule the RAW, and it didn't stop CharOp from dissecting the RAW. Unless 5e can brain wash its fans, I don't see the CharOp scene changing.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Buri wrote:
Diffan wrote:
System Abuse - Lord knows that we'll eventually see things like DPR-Kings and other such Character_Optimization threads that go into the guts of the system to find the ULTIMATE combo-power build (and that's cool, I'm fine with people who love to system-craft, etc) but the extent it was done in 3E and 4E, I felt bordered on the absurd. Obviously there will be loopholes or RAW vs. RAI questions and debates because the game is created by people, who are not perfect. But with the toned down scope of the system and less emphasis on min/max character builds, I think there will be less emphasis on it.
This is of particualr import to me. Things are worded in a way that lets them be more easily understood and ruled upon.

I suspect that 5e will be just as thoroughly dissected by the CharOp forums as every WotC edition. (The only reason that I omit TSR editions is because they had the shelter of existing before the internet became a big thing.)

CharOpping is something that fans do because they enjoy doing it, regardless of an edition's relative merits or flaws. Not even 5e's 'rulings instead of rules' will make a difference, because there are still official rules that can be used as a point of common discussion. Every other edition has provided DMs the ability to overrule the RAW, and it didn't stop CharOp from dissecting the RAW. Unless 5e can brain wash its fans, I don't see the CharOp scene changing.

Yes. It doesn't really look that way now, but that's because there is so little detail available. From the preview looks at the PHB, it looks like there will be plenty of room for build design. And I'm sure future releases will bring more feats and classes and archetypes and spells and all the complexity of how they all fit together will grow. Then we'll have plenty to argue over the minute details of phrasing.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
I've tried, but I simply can't get over the "meh" feeling over D&D Next. Honestly, this is the first edition of D&D I really just can't get into. I can't see what it actually offers me that I want.

Same here. In addition to all the replies here, though, it is the new edition of D&D, which is enough for many fans to buy at least the Core 3. And it does have a couple of novel things like the proficiency bonus, even if I don't think they're going to turn out nearly as swimmingly as 5e fans are hoping.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I've never got excited about a system because of the system - it's always about the supplements/adventures/accessories.

I'm the opposite, which is no doubt why I can't summon any enthusiasm for 5e. :)


Hama wrote:
Quote:
Some dark elements are back in including assassins as well as tieflings. Group play is back with various rules for group exploration and skill checks.
You do know that all this existed in 3E as well as 4E? It's not really back. It never went away.

I think the change is subtle but important. Instead of paying a lifestyle cost and getting to ignore a certain amount of daily expenditures, for example, now those things are called out as gear maintenance, lodging, eating, intrigue from thieves or aristocrats, and so on.

I forget the youtube channel I was watching, but they were going over 5e and one of the guys went on how if something isn't explicitly in the game then it's not really in the game that I found I agree with. Instead, there's a contrivance to make it part of the game. But, in 5e, with just the basic rules, those things are most certainly in the game.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Unless 5e can brain wash its fans, I don't see the CharOp scene changing.

Yeah. CharOp isn't going anywhere. As a general concept, at least. They might have shut down the board, I have no idea.

This short period before the PHB is released is pleasant in that regard, but it's really just the calm before the storm.

Cheers!
Landon


I'm excited to see a new version because I liked what I saw/experienced during the play test and the approach with the brand in the last year has been very positive in my experience. I'm a big fan of RPG books as products and fantasy art as well and I expect to enjoy the new edition books a lot.

Liberty's Edge

Hama wrote:
Quote:
Some dark elements are back in including assassins as well as tieflings. Group play is back with various rules for group exploration and skill checks.
You do know that all this existed in 3E as well as 4E? It's not really back. It never went away.

Yep. If I remember correctly the assassin was in the DMG for 3E as a prestige class and behind the pay wall for a long time in 4E. If I remember, in 3E, PCs were not supposed to be evil so the assassin was out RAW. So I never used either one (not as easy to use as in 1E). I did like the tiefling in 4E though. I don't think the tieflings in 4E were cursed by Asmodeus though like in 5E. They bargained into an infernal pact. The curse hounds them which is interesting.


Now that the PHB is out, what are people thinking?

I expect to get one on Friday. I still can't seem to get that excited. Perhaps part of it is they retained one thing from 4e that I didn't really care for. Everyone works off the same BAB in theory. IN otherwords, when you look at the proficiency bonus (If I understand it right), everyone has the equal chance to hit when they are proficient. A Fighter may get a +6 to hit with his sword...but wait...the wizard also gets a +6 to hit if they are using a quarterstaff...and the Rogue gets a +6 to hit with their weapons...etc...etc...etc.

IN addition, the Rogue gets proficiency with Thieves tools...that gives them a whole +6 (+12 as long as you choose it though with your ability) to be better in Thieves tools....which I suppose is nice...but in relation...even Pathfinder allows Rogues to be better with thief skills (well...as long as you don't choose specific archetypes for other classes), or those who are skilled in Thief skills to be better in them then anyone else (you could have up to a +20 or more at 20th level on a skill check to disable traps or open locks or disable and open a trapped locked door at the same time). People complain about Pathfinder Rogues (not that I agree, I think the Rogue is fine...but still)...I can't see the new D&D Rogue being any better to tell the truth.

AS a personal thing, and not so much one with the actual game rules...they should have made Cure light wounds a Ritual.

I know the fighter gets up to 5 attacks at 20th...but even with those extra attacks (They can get up to 4 attacks in PF, and have +20 to hit...as opposed to a wizard who will only have 2 attacks and a +10 in melee).

Of course, I'm totally new to these rules...but that's what it's looking like in the D&D Next.

Am I missing something?

Magic seems toned back quite a bit to tell the truth, so perhaps that will give martials more of a chance at high levels, despite being what appears to be toned back greatly.

Can't see any reason to play a Rogue, just play a criminal or other background for proficiency with Theives tools and you are set.

Still, looks like I'm probably going to be giving it at least a shot as some people seem to want to play it if we get our books on Friday. I guess I'll get a better picture then. I hope the DM has a better grasp on the rules than I do though.

Sovereign Court

Grey I think you are focusing too much on ability to hit. BA has changed all those assumptions. Being able to hit will be easier but being able to lay down the hurt will vary. Just cause the wiz has a good chance to hit with his QS, doesnt mean he will be able to outright slaughter things like the fighter. Rock it before you knock it.


Pan wrote:
Grey I think you are focusing too much on ability to hit. BA has changed all those assumptions. Being able to hit will be easier but being able to lay down the hurt will vary. Just cause the wiz has a good chance to hit with his QS, doesnt mean he will be able to outright slaughter things like the fighter. Rock it before you knock it.

I have the same gripe as GWL. Yes, I am aware that Wizards won't do as much damage but they simply should not be able to hit as well with weapons as other classes. They don't spend much time training with weapons and they should suck hard when it comes to using them.

Of course, it is probably a moot point as any Wizard who doesn't use their spammable Cantrip of Doom (aka Firebolt) whenever they aren't casting a "real" spell (i.e. 1st through 9th level spell) probably doesn't have the intelligence necessary to be a good Wizard anyway.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Can't see any reason to play a Rogue, just play a criminal or other background for proficiency with Theives tools and you are set.

Sneak attack multiplies on a crit. I'd think that'd be a very good reason.

Sovereign Court

Logan1138 wrote:
Pan wrote:
Grey I think you are focusing too much on ability to hit. BA has changed all those assumptions. Being able to hit will be easier but being able to lay down the hurt will vary. Just cause the wiz has a good chance to hit with his QS, doesnt mean he will be able to outright slaughter things like the fighter. Rock it before you knock it.

I have the same gripe as GWL. Yes, I am aware that Wizards won't do as much damage but they simply should not be able to hit as well with weapons as other classes. They don't spend much time training with weapons and they should suck hard when it comes to using them.

Of course, it is probably a moot point as any Wizard who doesn't use their spammable Cantrip of Doom (aka Firebolt) whenever they aren't casting a "real" spell (i.e. 1st through 9th level spell) probably doesn't have the intelligence necessary to be a good Wizard anyway.

Yeah the pew pew bullets are an annoying feature of casters in 5E for sure. Though if being able to hit well enough to make it worth doing occasionally will allow casters to rely less on their pew pew im all for it. Hopefully the DMG has some dials to allow customization in these areas. You are also missing the point of BA, hitting is not difficult now its being able to lay on the hurt when you do hit that matters. Martials will make a difference in this department as you feel they should.


Logan1138 wrote:
Pan wrote:
Grey I think you are focusing too much on ability to hit. BA has changed all those assumptions. Being able to hit will be easier but being able to lay down the hurt will vary. Just cause the wiz has a good chance to hit with his QS, doesnt mean he will be able to outright slaughter things like the fighter. Rock it before you knock it.
I have the same gripe as GWL. Yes, I am aware that Wizards won't do as much damage but they simply should not be able to hit as well with weapons as other classes. They don't spend much time training with weapons and they should suck hard when it comes to using them

And they do. It's just not the to hit roll where they suck hard.

This is purely a matter of perception.

At least that's the theory.


I don't see the fuss over wizards being able to hit something with a stick. Bounded Accuracy by design means everything is vulnerable ergo everything can potentially do harm on something else. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with one of the fundamentals of the system to the point where I'd challenge you to reevaluate you wanting to play it. That's not an easy change to simply house rule and keep clean.

That said, wizards only ever get one attack per round even at level 20. Your attack progression depends on your class as well as what you can do when you attack. The wizard gets no frills there.

Shadow Lodge

Buri wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Can't see any reason to play a Rogue, just play a criminal or other background for proficiency with Theives tools and you are set.
Sneak attack multiplies on a crit. I'd think that'd be a very good reason.

Only draw back to that is that a rogue can only sneak attack once around. Kinda limits the damage out put.


Buri wrote:

I don't see the fuss over wizards being able to hit something with a stick. Bounded Accuracy by design means everything is vulnerable ergo everything can potentially do harm on something else. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with one of the fundamentals of the system to the point where I'd challenge you to reevaluate you wanting to play it. That's not an easy change to simply house rule and keep clean.

That said, wizards only ever get one attack per round even at level 20. Your attack progression depends on your class as well as what you can do when you attack. The wizard gets no frills there.

I'm not so certain I want to play it currently, but if I want to play with the group I met here, it doesn't look like I'll have a choice, at least for a short while. They all seem to want to give it a shot, so I'm at their mercy (I suppose I could try to find another PF group, but I do like the people in the group I've met thus far in this location).

That doesn't mean I don't want to play it, just still at the meh stage. I like some of what I see, but some of what I see doesn't make me all that excited either. BA seems to be one of those things that isn't all that exciting for me. Skills also don't seem all that exciting for me right now. On Paper (note I haven't played the release version, just read over it thus far) it doesn't seem all that great to me...I'm not sure how actual play will go though.

To me what it looks like is the creators of the game thought low level play was where the game was at...so they made the entire game play more like a game of PF crossed with 4e at levels 1-8 and no higher really.

So you can't have more spells than a certain point (INT MOD+level), you can only get so high on your proficiency bonus (everyone has a base at the highest of +6), you can't get ability scores over 20...a lot of YOU CAN'T in this game that I see and less you can's as far as the numbers seem to go.

Jacob Saltband wrote:
Buri wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Can't see any reason to play a Rogue, just play a criminal or other background for proficiency with Theives tools and you are set.
Sneak attack multiplies on a crit. I'd think that'd be a very good reason.
Only draw back to that is that a rogue can only sneak attack once around. Kinda limits the damage out put.

That's also a good point.

Shadow Lodge

What is 'Bounded Accuracy'? Every link to it I have looked at has been broken so I havent been able to read what this means.


If I understand correctly, it's the proficiency bonus. So, you get a bonus to every skill you are proficient with. For example, a class that is proficient with shortswords but not longswords will get a +2 to hit with the shortswords, but no bonus to hit with the longswords. IN addition, they will get a +2 to the skills they've chosen.

So a Rogue with Sleight of Hand will get a +2 to the skill in addition to the DEX modifier bonus they also get.

I'm not an expert on the rules (as I said, I hope the DM has a much better grasp then I do when we play), but I think that's what people are referring to when they talk about bonded accuracy.


Bounded Accuracy is that all threats are potentially viable. A town could band together to drive off a dragon, a horde of CR 9 (iirc) orcs could pose a genuine threat to even level 20 PCs, and so on. Try as I might, though, I couldn't find a mirror for the article. Try your luck but here's the original source before the site redesign: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604

This link has a large quote from it, though.

Jacob Saltband wrote:
Only draw back to that is that a rogue can only sneak attack once around. Kinda limits the damage out put.

And? All crits are only x2. So, a greatsword fighter only get 4d6 on a natural 20. A rogue can 2d6 much more reliably. On a crit, that's 4d6. As soon as 3rd level, before the fighter gets their extra attack, that becomes 6d6. When fighters do get their extra attack at 5th, the rogue's sneaking crit is 8d6, on par with the critting fighter. The normal attack being 4d6 for the fighter and 4d6 for the rogue round after round. So, they can match greatsword wielding fighters in round for round damage plus extra class features. What more do you want?

Looking at level 20, the rogue can get in a round for round output of 11d6, 22d6 on a crit. A fighter will be doing 8d6 normal, 16d6 crit. Some fighter variants can let you get in even more attacks per round making that more even but the base fighter vs base rogue, the rogue actually comes out on top for damage.


Buri wrote:

Bounded Accuracy is that all threats are potentially viable. A town could band together to drive off a dragon, a horde of CR 9 (iirc) orcs could pose a genuine threat to even level 20 PCs, and so on. Try as I might, though, I couldn't find a mirror for the article. Try your luck but here's the original source before the site redesign: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604

This link has a large quote from it, though.

Jacob Saltband wrote:
Only draw back to that is that a rogue can only sneak attack once around. Kinda limits the damage out put.

And? All crits are only x2. So, a greatsword fighter only get 4d6 on a natural 20. A rogue can 2d6 much more reliably. On a crit, that's 4d6. As soon as 3rd level, before the fighter gets their extra attack, that becomes 6d6. When fighters do get their extra attack at 5th, the rogue's sneaking crit is 8d6, on par with the critting fighter. The normal attack being 4d6 for the fighter and 4d6 for the rogue round after round. So, they can match greatsword wielding fighters in round for round damage plus extra class features. What more do you want?

Looking at level 20, the rogue can get in a round for round output of 11d6, 22d6 on a crit. A fighter will be doing 8d6 normal, 16d6 crit. Some fighter variants can let you get in even more attacks per round making that more even but the base fighter vs base rogue, the rogue actually comes out on top for damage.

I think a fighter will probably get 8d6+20 dmg on average if not more at level 20, with at least two rounds between rests at 10d6+30 dmg.

They stand around a 15% chance (at the least, of course, depending on archetype) each time to have a crit, so of those they probably will have at least one or two at 16d6 or 20d6.

That's per round as opposed to the Rogue's once. The 10d6+30 is probably more comparable to the Sneak attack, as that is the Fighter's special if they use their bonus action for an attack instead of something else (who knows, there probably are more useful things the fighter could do with it, or so I imagine).

But, otherwise, your point is made.


All the rogue needs to get round-for-round sneak attacks is to have an enemy of its target be within 5 feet of their target. It doesn't even have to be your ally. The other condition is to have surprise. If you have any kind of tank/front-liner then a rogue in your group should be getting them off pretty consistently.


I looked it up and you are right!

Though the actual condition isn't surprise, I think it's you have to have advantage...OR....there is an enemy of the target that is not incapacitated within 5 feet and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. It also has to be done with a finesse or ranged weapon.

Probably still would go with the Fighter with a criminal background over the rogue however. I simply can't see the advantages of the Rogue really, they don't even have anything special with their skills.

Fighters can heal themselves to a degree, get more attacks, and specials on those attacks, along with more hitpoints, and still get the types of skills a Rogue would use that make a Rogue a Rogue.

OR you could be a Cleric or Wizard and still get those skills. Sneak attack is decent, but I don't see it as a standout thing that really makes the Rogue all that great in this version of the game. Once again, as if it needs to be said, on paper at least. IF someone plays a Rogue in game, I suppose I can see for myself how they really are like.


You should look at the arcane trickster. Think wizard with sneak attack dice. Plus, the assassin subclass has save or die attacks, iirc.

You're right on just needing advantage.

Though, you shouldn't compare a base class with another base class and try to sneak in their subclass features. That's a tad much Schrodinger for me.

At the end of the day, most any character can have any skill combination you want. It's not about skills, to me, though. It's about class features.


I think a lot of the excitement comes from it simply being a new edition of D&D - still a valuable brand, and still capable of invoking nostalgia among all the old-school gamers, as well as having geek cachet.

As far as the game goes, time will tell. There is a lot of stuff buried in the PHB (I'm still reading through it) much of it reminiscent of past editions. There's some 4th edition stuff (Mearls is still lead design on this) some throwbacks to 3.5 and earlier, and some pretty well integrated new stuff.

I like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. It's simple, applicable in many situations, and it keeps the game moving. While I like the complexity of Pathfinder, and will probably continue to play it, the new iteration of D&D is much less daunting to pick up and play and /or run as a DM.

Drawbacks? I don't see this being a gridless game. Miniatures and maps are always optional I guess, but I certainly couldn't imagine playing Pathfinder without them. (I am a meticulous picky painter from a wargaming background, so I always get a little frustrated at unpainted minis and prepainted blobs on the table!) Also, I think sometimes folks want to play D&D or its iterations at the exclusion of all other games - even I was reluctant to try the Dresden Files RPG, and I love Numenara...but nobody seems remotely interested in playing it.

I generally think it looks like it might be a very good iteration of D&D. Given that is what a lot of tabletop RPGers play, that's a good thing.

Also, as a final side note, the artwork is a vast improvement over 4th edition, most of which I found dreadful.


FuriousPhil wrote:
Drawbacks? I don't see this being a gridless game. Miniatures and maps are always optional I guess, but I certainly couldn't imagine playing Pathfinder without them. (I am a meticulous picky painter from a wargaming background, so I always get a little frustrated at unpainted minis and prepainted blobs on the table!)

I'll likely use a grid, too, but if I do it will almost certainly be a hex grid rather than a rectangular one. The default assumption in the rules is no grid, and I expect that will make it a bit easier to go to hexagons than PF (although even that isn't actually very hard).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Can't see any reason to play a Rogue, just play a criminal or other background for proficiency with Theives tools and you are set.

See, for me, this is a feature, not a bug. I like that if I want to play a rogue for the playstyle, the option is there - but if I want to be a thief of Olidammara who serves as the party's trapsmith, the options are right there to do so.

Playing a rogue still has plenty of perks - they get awfully good at skill checks (and with the new bounded approach to most bonuses, doubling one's proficiency bonus on expert skills is a huge deal.) I love how elegantly they made rogue's into dynamic skirmishers by giving them extra actions in combat - but all of them non-attack actions. Sure, the Fighter can flip out and take a flurry of attacks in one round and shred someone.

But every round of combat, the rogue can dart out of the shadows, shoot someone in the neck, and then dash back around a corner. Or can fling a dagger with one hand while the other hand unlocks a door. Emphasizing those utility perks and abilities, for me, is what gives the rogue a great role - but without making them a 'required for play' choice in order to deal with traps. For me, that's the best of both worlds.

Logan1138 wrote:
es, I am aware that Wizards won't do as much damage but they simply should not be able to hit as well with weapons as other classes. They don't spend much time training with weapons and they should suck hard when it comes to using them.

Except we are explicitly talking about Wizards who do spend time training with weapons. That's the point of them being proficient! Whether they spent a feat on it, or have a racial benefit, the idea is that this isn't some random scholar who just picked up a sword, but someone who actually has spent time and effort learning to wield a blade. Why shouldn't they be perfectly capable of swinging the sword with skill, if they have the stats and proficiency to do so?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Except we are explicitly talking about Wizards who do spend time training with weapons. That's the point of them being proficient! Whether they spent a feat on it, or have a racial benefit, the idea is that this isn't some random scholar who just picked up a sword, but someone who actually has spent time and effort learning to wield a blade. Why shouldn't they be perfectly capable of swinging the sword with skill, if they have the stats and proficiency to do so?

Because that's not how D20 games work? Seriously, it really isn't. The game is designed so that the majority of one's ability is defined by class; ergo, if you want to be good at fighting, pick a class that's good at fighting.

I'm not saying that's good or bad...it just is. Fighting the design of system seems like an unnecessary headache.


It is a side effect of spellcasters using their spellcasting ability + proficiency bonus (aka BAB) for attack spells. And since touch AC is no longer a thing, their proficiency bonus needs to be the same as the fighter's or else no one would play a spellcaster unless they like staying waaaaaay far away and concentrating on a single buff/debuff spell or heal. Which isn't exactly compelling gameplay.

1 to 50 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Explain the excitement over D&D Next All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.