A question for fellow 3.5 lovers...

[JackRackham]

Without breaking any confidentiality agreements, how many of you are keeping an eye on D&D Next/5th Edition? How many of you are participating in the playtest? What are your general opinions (w/o discussing specific likes/dislikes) of the direction it's headed?

I'm wondering because I can see elements of 5th reminded me of Pathfinder and Legend and because I'm wondering if any of the d&d-geniuses who frequent this board are offering their two cents (JaronK, Afroakuma, others), particularly since some of you were involved in building a potential competitor in Legend. My own attempts to envision the relative power levels of the (tentative) classes is what spurred the thought, as I was wondering what a tier system might look like if the process were frozen as-is. That led me to wonder whether some of you even care, or whether you'll simply continue to play 3.5 (as I planned to do until a friend recommended I look at the most recent playtest release).

[Gildedragon]

I am and it is... Interesting. Different, but similar.
Will likely stick to 3.5 as its what has, so far, the most options and diversity and what friends enjoy me DMing the most.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm not keeping an eye on it, nor am I participating in the playtest. I have other things to do, and hope 5e actually turns out to be good. If it does turn out to be really good (i.e. if you guys say it's really good), I might switch from Pathfinder to 5e.

[afroakuma]

My general opinion of D&D Next is that it's making a slew of mistakes, many of them very painful and obvious missteps. It's all the more aggravating because in many cases I understand what's driving them to make such decisions.

[Cranthis]

My general opinion of D&D Next is that it's making a slew of mistakes, many of them very painful and obvious missteps. It's all the more aggravating because in many cases I understand what's driving them to make such decisions.

More or less this.

[Norin]

No idea how it works, but i'm interested in checking it out.

What mistakes are you refering to here Afro? Some examples?

[Snowbluff]

I am not giving it any attention, even though I should be. I am pretty loyal to WotC, and I know people who will buy the system, regardless. What is most likely to happen with me is that I will end up playing it with one of those people and make my decisions then, like I did with PF and 4e.

[Phelix-Mu]

WotC irritated me with the rapid switch from 3.0 to 3.5. I was happy for a while.

WotC infuriated me with 4.0. Not only had they just started to get their act together with 3.5, with potential improvements in ToB and a republishing of the ruleset in the Rules Compendium, but they had a nice stack of resources and a vibrant community for each of the different settings for 3.5. It was far, far, far from perfect, but D&D was never perfect in any of its incarnations. Then they just went back to the drawing board, made a new game from scratch, and called it D&D with little basis for doing so. As a side note, non-compatibility is never a good "improvement" to make to a game. Just make a new game, and continue support for the existing game.

Eh, I can't even hammer together a cogent critique. It makes me that mad just thinking about it.

5e. Well, I laughed when I heard about it. I don't care anymore. I was skeptical when WotC bought out TSR, and my skepticism has largely been confirmed. Commitment to community over profit has not ever been WotC strong point, and waffling over current edition and vision for the future of D&D hasn't changed this.

Nevertheless, I have great brand loyalty. D&D was my entry into the world of fantasy back in third grade in the early 90s. It literally changed my life. I will always follow this game in one incarnation or another, but, at this point, THE LESS MONEY I GIVE TO WIZARDS OF THE COAST, THE BETTER.

Just sayin'.

[Clericzilla]

Actually I find D&DNext is pretty awesome, sure they have some weird things but overall (as a fan of 2e,3.5,4e) I have to say they are working toward something new that has the potentialof being awesome. I like 2e/3.5/4e for different reasons and I think D&DNext may be able to add into that category.

The problem with this forum (and specifically this sub forum) is so many people are OMFG3.5 which is fine... Except many people are against change and think that new editions somehow threaten their old edition. Just because a new edition comes out doesn't mean you have to play it, also you aren't cheating on 3.5/4.0 if you play D&DNext (seriously some people I know in real life that explained why they wouldn't try new editions because it felt like cheating... Weird).

The difference between Next and every other edition is that WoTC is actually listening to the people who respond. Sadly they might listen to the wrong people but hey it is a step in the right direction (I keep thinking the Paizo guys are flooding the response answers just to mess with WoTC). I think they have made some minor mistakes when listening to people (look into what they changed Parry into :( ) but can people really complain when a company learns from their mistakes? Hell most individuals don't change after making a mistake, they just keep beating their head into a wall.

[JackRackham]

No idea how it works, but i'm interested in checking it out.

What mistakes are you referring to here Afro? Some examples?

Examples would violate the terms of the confidentiality agreement one signs before participating in the playtest, so we can't really discuss that here, at least until the finalized system is released.

For the record, I hated what I saw this time last year, but it appears they've made positive progress. What I mean is, I like the version (limited though it is at this point) I see now FAR better than what they started with.

I would actually characterize it as promising, though I haven't done the math and there's much yet to be released.

[Phelix-Mu]

Actually I find D&DNext is pretty awesome, sure they have some weird things but overall (as a fan of 2e,3.5,4e) I have to say they are working toward something new that has the potentialof being awesome. I like 2e/3.5/4e for different reasons and I think D&DNext may be able to add into that category.

The problem with this forum (and specifically this sub forum) is so many people are OMFG3.5 which is fine... Except many people are against change and think that new editions somehow threaten their old edition. Just because a new edition comes out doesn't mean you have to play it, also you aren't cheating on 3.5/4.0 if you play D&DNext (seriously some people I know in real life that explained why they wouldn't try new editions because it felt like cheating... Weird).

The difference between Next and every other edition is that WoTC is actually listening to the people who respond. Sadly they might listen to the wrong people but hey it is a step in the right direction (I keep thinking the Paizo guys are flooding the response answers just to mess with WoTC). I think they have made some minor mistakes when listening to people (look into what they changed Parry into :( ) but can people really complain when a company learns from their mistakes? Hell most individuals don't change after making a mistake, they just keep beating their head into a wall.

The main critique that I have is that constant revision to attract new players penalizes long-time players. Old rulesets are no longer developed, and if you want to play with the new kids, pony up the cash for new books or w/e (or just .pdfs, but that isn't much of a business model either).

Changes are fine, and 3.0->3.5 was good, more of the same, good. But non-compatibility is a big issue if I want to stay current with the ruleset in my setting, but don't want to reinvent the wheel for all my npcs and such.

Most of this is personal qualms, but they aren't exactly unfounded complaints.

[JackRackham]

The main critique that I have is that constant revision to attract new players penalizes long-time players. Old rulesets are no longer developed, and if you want to play with the new kids, pony up the cash for new books or w/e (or just .pdfs, but that isn't much of a business model either).

Changes are fine, and 3.0->3.5 was good, more of the same, good. But non-compatibility is a big issue if I want to stay current with the ruleset in my setting, but don't want to reinvent the wheel for all my npcs and such.

Most of this is personal qualms, but they aren't exactly unfounded complaints.

I get their motivation, though. I mean 3.5 was just hopelessly unbalanced (which bothers some of us more than others). 4.0 attempted to fix that, but oversimplified and sucked all the awesome out of the game in the process. 5.0 seems like an attempt to make a game as balanced as 4.0, but with the variety and (optional) complexity of 3.5. Whether or not they succeed may be another story. I'm reserving judgement for the final product, but I think this (and $$$) is their motivation.

[Ranting Fool]

I've been skimming over the playtest stuff just to see whats going on. Haven't convinced anyone to be able to do a game but i'm sure someone I know will pick up the new PHB and DMG (or whatever they are called in 5) so I'm holding back judgement till then. :smallbiggrin:

[Phelix-Mu]

I get their motivation, though. I mean 3.5 was just hopelessly unbalanced (which bothers some of us more than others). 4.0 attempted to fix that, but oversimplified and sucked all the awesome out of the game in the process. 5.0 seems like an attempt to make a game as balanced as 4.0, but with the variety and (optional) complexity of 3.5. Whether or not they succeed may be another story. I'm reserving judgement for the final product, but I think this (and $$$) is their motivation.

Hmm, I agree about the final form of 3.5 being something of an abomination balance-wise, but hey, you broke it, you own it. Inability to salvage something they themselves broke speaks poorly of their own self-awareness, design-wise, and I feel they found themselves in a tough spot and bailed.

Just my view, and, as I initially stated, I am way too vested emotionally in the game as a whole to be objective in any form. I am like almost two decades into world design, so I kind of get a little...crazy when people talk about abrupt changes to the ruleset.

But hey, at least they are looking to salvage things? Looking up?

[Clericzilla]

The main critique that I have is that constant revision to attract new players penalizes long-time players. Old rulesets are no longer developed, and if you want to play with the new kids, pony up the cash for new books or w/e (or just .pdfs, but that isn't much of a business model either).

Changes are fine, and 3.0->3.5 was good, more of the same, good. But non-compatibility is a big issue if I want to stay current with the ruleset in my setting, but don't want to reinvent the wheel for all my npcs and such.

Most of this is personal qualms, but they aren't exactly unfounded complaints.

But if your game (1e,2e,3e, etc) isn't upgraded then the kids will have to pony up for books that are no longer supported (went out of business) or is so watered down that it is no longer what it once was.

Once the PS4 comes out (shouldn't be to much longer now >.>) I don't think many people will be buying a PS2, hell people hardly buy them refurbished now. I still have tons of games I LOVE on the PS2, however to play new games I will have to pony up some money for the PS4. Some of the best games are on older consoles (and I hate a ton of games on my PS3) but I accept that change will happen and I can either play my old PS2 games by myself (or with friends I've known forever) or get the new hardware and play wifi with people all over the country and world. Heck I've started playing Uncharted 3 multiplayer and I originally hated shooter games like that.

Same thing with D&D, I upgrade and play the game for what it is, not what it isn't.

All of your settings and rules still work with every new edition of D&D, that won't ever change. You don't really need to change anything about your NPCs, they still have the same personalities and jobs do they not? A PC/NPC is more than class crunch if anything I think the fluff is more important than the crunch. I've had many NPCs that I've ported over to other editions so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Actually I've found that most complaints on other editions (2e to 3e, 3e to 4e) have been unfounded complaints and they were usually the same arguments funny enough (to videogamey for one).

I like to think of each edition of D&D like each game of the Final Fantasy series. Sure they have similarities but they are each their own stand alone game. Funny enough I view 3.5 and 4.essentials are the FFX-2 of the D&D world :P, the sequels of the Tabletop RPG games.



I've been skimming over the playtest stuff just to see whats going on. Haven't convinced anyone to be able to do a game but i'm sure someone I know will pick up the new PHB and DMG (or whatever they are called in 5) so I'm holding back judgement till then. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah sadly I have the same problem, to many people in the group I play with hate everything that isn't 3.5/Pathfinder. This includes other systems, 2e, and 4e. They just won't touch anything else. :(

I sometimes can find people for a one shot but that isn't to often.

[Phelix-Mu]

All of your settings and rules still work with every new edition of D&D, that won't ever change. You don't really need to change anything about your NPCs, they still have the same personalities and jobs do they not? A PC/NPC is more than class crunch if anything I think the fluff is more important than the crunch. I've had many NPCs that I've ported over to other editions so I'm not sure what the problem is.


I agree with 90% of what you said in principle. But this part isn't that accurate. When a new mechanic came out for sorcerer in 3e, lots of people that were once wizards got re-envisioned as sorcerers. If I wanted to make an npc that used to be a wizard into the 3e version, I have to reassess their personality and decide if sorcerer was more appropriate. This may require retooling their stats, equipment, spell lists.

A similar conundrum arose in 4e, where class structure changed quite dramatically. Granted, the "jobs" are still covered, but my world models the fluff very closely to the crunch, and changes to frequency of use of abilities, and especially the workings of higher level characters (many of the most powerful npcs in my world are above 30th level) stood to change dramatically.

In the end, I just didn't bother. I converted dozens of world rulers and npcs from 2e to 3e, and updated some for 3.5. By the time 4e rolled around, I just couldn't be bothered, since I knew that 4.5 or w/e wouldn't be long in the making. Lo and behold, 5e is already in the works.

Again, I think your views about being flexible and valuing each system for what they are is fine. Some change is good, but it's possible to have too much of anything.

[afroakuma]

Hmm, I agree about the final form of 3.5 being something of an abomination balance-wise

Well, the thing is, the initial form of 3.5 was the abomination. It was actually cleaning up its act to some extent toward the end, with some new and creative systems and supplements. Looking at the metatext between the books, you could tell they were actually working on a lot of things that unfortunately never came to fruition and getting new bearings on the game as a whole. Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum and the Bindery bits of Tome of Magic all left a decent to positive impression, and the It's X Outside books actually contained some useful things for DMs, as did the DMGII.

Legend, when it was built, was inspired by the best of 3.5 as well as a thorough understanding of its flaws. Balance was a concern, of course, but so were some of the things WotC did well with 4E. Unfortunately, 4E as a whole leaves a sour taste in my mouth; it has never felt like Dungeons & Dragons to me, but rather a different game wearing a skin that doesn't fit. That's something that still disappoints me about Legend; it's a new game and it doesn't land in that same mindspace D&D did. I don't know that anything ever will. :smallannoyed:


All of your settings and rules still work with every new edition of D&D, that won't ever change.

That is most decidedly untrue.

[JackRackham]

Well, the thing is, the initial form of 3.5 was the abomination. It was actually cleaning up its act to some extent toward the end, with some new and creative systems and supplements. Looking at the metatext between the books, you could tell they were actually working on a lot of things that unfortunately never came to fruition and getting new bearings on the game as a whole. Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum and the Bindery bits of Tome of Magic all left a decent to positive impression, and the It's X Outside books actually contained some useful things for DMs, as did the DMGII.

Legend, when it was built, was inspired by the best of 3.5 as well as a thorough understanding of its flaws. Balance was a concern, of course, but so were some of the things WotC did well with 4E. Unfortunately, 4E as a whole leaves a sour taste in my mouth; it has never felt like Dungeons & Dragons to me, but rather a different game wearing a skin that doesn't fit. That's something that still disappoints me about Legend; it's a new game and it doesn't land in that same mindspace D&D did. I don't know that anything ever will. :smallannoyed:



That is most decidedly untrue.

I have a similar concern (regarding Legend, 3.5, Pathfinder, a lot of games). I might just be hopelessly addicted to 3.5. There was a thread a few weeks back about classes we kept coming back to even though they were 'just no good for us.' I think maybe that sums up 3.5 as a whole. I'm hoping the feel of 5th gets close enough that I can replace my 3.5 addiction, but I haven't been able to replace it in the past.

[Togo]

I've not been involved in the NEXT playtesting. But I've seen editions come and go....

The strength of D&D has always been that is had more rules than any normal person could hope to use in a single game. That sounds like a mad thing to a call a strength, but it really does work. You use the rules that cover the situations and themes that make most sense to you, and that's your game. It's not particularly balanced, and generally hasn't been, and I think that trying to make a balanced game system, as opposed to balancing a particular game, is actually a serious mistake. An opinion that has been neatly confirmed by various attempts to do just that, from various internet attempts to 4e, where the game was made extremely smooth, easy and practical to play, and very well balanced, and sales crashed as a result.

So I'm hoping that the game goes back to the winning formula. A vast crazy laberyithine structure of rules boosted by endless supplements, which can be combined to make the game that a particular group wants to play. Not particularly well balanced, not particularly consistent, full of exceptions, loopholes and even the odd direct contradiction.

In short, take every complaining thread that's been posted on boards like this one, and build a game based around what they dislike, and you're pretty close to the perfect game. I don't want to see a smooth, well polished system that produces a distinctive flavour - I want to see a chaotic inconsistent messs of rules that I can use to build the game I want to play. Because that's fun, that expands the hobby, that provides ample scope for supplements that keep the hobby profitable without raising the price for everyone who plays it, and that's what's kept this game of ours a success for nigh on 40 years.

[JackRackham]

Well, it sounds like they're trying to accommodate that sort of approach to play while maintaining a streamlined version to draw in noobies (attract new blood to the hobby, that sort of thing).

basic: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130114

standard: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130122

advanced: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130128

Again, the question seems to be execution.

[Phelix-Mu]

snip

I find most of this to be very agreeable. I do like a certain organic nature to a rules system, and I guess what I found most distasteful about the WotC editions regime was that there seemed to be a deadline on each edition, a point at which, if it wasn't good yet, they ditch it and start over. Not very organic, and reminded me a little too much of the MtG collectible card game business model, where the profitability relies on routine release of new stuff that is widely considered to be essential to continuing to play (as opposed to supplements and such which are useful, but optional).

[Clericzilla]

I agree with 90% of what you said in principle. But this part isn't that accurate. When a new mechanic came out for sorcerer in 3e, lots of people that were once wizards got re-envisioned as sorcerers. If I wanted to make an npc that used to be a wizard into the 3e version, I have to reassess their personality and decide if sorcerer was more appropriate. This may require retooling their stats, equipment, spell lists.

Not really, I'm playing a Psion in a game right now and everyone thinks I'm a wizard... I even have a book that I read after waking up from slumber. The names and abilities don't matter that much, it just depends on what you tell people. If you say "a man in robes and a pouch walks up to you" do your players automatically know that he is a wizard or sorcerer? Does it really change anything if you have the mechanics for a sorcerer but the NPC is a wizard? No. They both cast spells and both can do incredible things that non-casters just can't dream of doing.




In the end, I just didn't bother. I converted dozens of world rulers and npcs from 2e to 3e, and updated some for 3.5. By the time 4e rolled around, I just couldn't be bothered, since I knew that 4.5 or w/e wouldn't be long in the making. Lo and behold, 5e is already in the works.


Well a company is about money and without upgrades/diversity/new products/new services a company can't grow. If a company isn't growing then the company is in BIG trouble (big companies... smaller places with smaller companies can have less growth). Disliking WoTC or their products for making the company making new products for new generations is a bit silly.

It would have sucked if car manufacturers stopped creating new cars in the late early 80's.

[AmberVael]

That's something that still disappoints me about Legend; it's a new game and it doesn't land in that same mindspace D&D did. I don't know that anything ever will. :smallannoyed:

I quite agree with this sentiment.

I've looked around at quite a few attempts to fix or update 3.5. Those that do too little utterly fail to fix it. Any that comes up with something more balanced or fixed tends to end up with a system that is not D&D 3.5, even if I like the result.


With this in mind... I am entirely uninterested in D&D Next, especially with their premise. They're going to try and appeal to me and get my attention back, and in all likelihood their attempt is going to fall flat on its butt, because I already have what I want, and I don't particularly need a replacement for it. Given that what I've seen of it (I looked at playtest the material they sent me early on, was wholly unimpressed, and have lost interest since then) has not at all appealed to me, and I feel fairly pessimistic about their goals (which sound like a ton of giant promises that will be insanely hard to keep), I very much doubt I'll ever take to D&D Next.

Frankly, the best way they could get my attention and interest is if they dropped D&D out of the picture and just went for "Next." If I got the feeling they were trying something genuinely new and interesting rather than trying to give me something I already had, I might care a great deal more. As it is, I have half seriously told many of my friends that I hope D&D Next fails so miserably that it kills off any attempts to make a new version any time soon. Maybe that way some new and more interesting game system could come to prominence for a while. D&D could then rest until it was outdated and discarded, or until some actually worthy idea brought back.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I looked at the first playtest when it came out (after having to jump through an absurd amount of very-high flaming hoops to actually get my packet, not that that's relevant) and didn't find it particularly new or exciting.

As a gamer, I've moved on from 3.5 a lot, expanded my horizons as they say, so the type of game D&D represents doesn't hold a monopoly on my gaming any more... at this point, it's easier to stick with 3.5 than to learn a new edition. If I'm going to learn a new system to fill the same niche, Legend is about the minimum for how different it has to be to get me to bother (and the fact that I haven't read it through yet shows that it's right on the border).

[Kane0]

It's different. In the way that Apple released their new cable for their products, people just don't like certain kinds of change.

There are good changes and bad changes, but it is still D&D, just like 3rd ed was to AD&D and 4th Ed was to 3.5.

I won't be playing it, but I will definitely be stealing bits that I like for homebrew and houseruling.

[navar100]

We've had 8 threads already discussing this in the general forum. While there have been some good ideas of new game mechanics, so far I don't see it pulling me away from Pathfinder. When it's ultimately published I will buy the PHB and DMG out of curiosity of the final product and decide then if I'm willing to play it. Whether I actually will would depend on my playing groups, but I won't be sorry if we just stick with Pathfinder.

[JackRackham]

For the record, I think 5th Edition will be closer in feel to 3.5 than 4th. It doesn't look like D&D for Dummies is the concept; that's what's got my attention.

[Jon_Dahl]

The rules itself are meaningless to me, but if we have lots of adventures (with quality maps and stats) and campaign books that arouse my interest, then I might reconsider.

[Fates]

It seems far too simplified for my tastes. It lacks the complexity that 3.5 has, and that's really what I love about 3.5. Mind you, I've only been on the D&D scene for five years now, but I have to say that to me, the system used really does have an effect on the quality of the game; that's not to say that I haven't had fun playing fourth edition, or legend, or so forth, but it's just harder to have as much fun, or to create campaign worlds as diverse and complex as it is in 3.5 (or sometimes pathfinder). As others have mentioned, 5e just doesn't feel like D&D to me.

That being said, I definitely prefer it to fourth edition. I had only just started D&D when 4e came out, but upon purchasing the core rulebooks, I was immediately disappointed, and stuck to 3.5. I feel like 5e is trying to compromise the two systems, rather than make it better than either of them (because as much as I like 3.5, I think we can all agree that it is massively flawed). Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that they seem to have made the game relatively balanced without making it completely ridiculous, but a lot of the flavor really bugs me, and everything's so extremely simplified that I find myself unable to enjoy playtesting it. I don't see why WotC is trying to attract new players by making the game simple. I started D&D when 3.5 was at its most complex, and the myriad options for how to play my characters or run my campaigns that were presented to me are really what attracted me to it.


Sorry for being so terribly long-winded; I'm tired as hell right now, and I fear that what I just wrote is terribly incoherent. Sorry also for ending my post in an apology; seriously, who cares?

[ArcturusV]

Hmm... here is my concern.

In older editions of DnD (Predating 3rd/3.5), there was a natural balance where Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, Thieves, etc, all started out more powerful than Spellcasters (Other than Clerics who were also combat beasts comparable to fighters). But as you moved on, these spellcasters who were near helpless weaklings who had to really miser their power and be intelligent with it would finally "Click online" and get a lot more powerful. You respected the mages because they started out with like 1-4 HP, 1 spell per day, and earned their power. Fighters and such became weaker members. Clerics were fairly consistent though never quite got as powerful as straight wizards and the like with their power.

In 3rd/3.5 for various reasons (Con Bonus to HP for everyone, max HP at first level, level zero spells, bonus spells for high stats, etc) it started more with wizards and mages being on par with mundane characters at level 1. And they just outstripped them pretty fast from that point on. The mundane character never really has a chance to catch up.

In 4th? Everyone's equal and valid enough that you never really have characters who feel like spectators to the "look how awesome I am!" show in earlier editions (like the 2nd edition wizard just watching the Fighter and Cleric clean up a fight). So this was decent for me as.... well... no one wants to be the second banana really. Well some do. But I never really saw people who ALWAYS want to be the second banana (like mundanes in third).

So... I haven't heard too much about 5th as it stands. Other than they named it "Next" which sounds stupidly shortsighted. And a few things which have suggested to me once again that mundane characters will be second bananas. Lines like their design philosophy being "The wizard will kill a god and fight it on equal terms. The fighter is only there to fight the god's peons."

[Squirrel_Dude]

I don't like the advantage/disadvantage system. Being able to roll twice and take the best result is too large a bonus in most cases in my opinion.

[Kane0]

I don't like the advantage/disadvantage system. Being able to roll twice and take the best result is too large a bonus in most cases in my opinion.

Sorry, I'd have to disagree here. It's about the only thing I looked at and said to myself 'Now that is a great idea. I'm nabbing that for my current games." It's far more fun and interesting than giving a flat + or - 2 to a roll for special circumstances.
That said, I don't lean on it as much as Next does.

/Digression.

[SowZ]

I like some decisions. Martial characters are still weaker than spellcasters, but they have more to do. It will at least be more interesting to play, say, a Fighter. And Monk is now playable. For example, Monk's can do fancy things like fly for a short burst a few times per day. Little things that are nice. As much as some people knock it, the martial dice system is kinda cool. Hopefully they tweak it a lot and balance it more before the real release, though.

There is a lot less feat tax. Weapon finesse is an option everyone gets, and dex weapons add dex to damage meaning you don't have to be a 2 hander to do good damage, anymore. I like keeping the numbers low as far as to hit bonus and AC. There aren't many feats yet, but if they continue with the current trend you won't have to grab a bunch of pre-requisite feats.

Rocket tag is worse than ever, though, with damage scaling up pretty quickly now. The ceiling is lower, damage wise, but the floor is a lot higher. My guess is that it will be easier to realize a lot of different character concepts from just the PHB this time around because you won't have to dig through other books just to get ACFs. Different ACFs and class paths are built in to each class. However, fewer concepts are going to be realizable for quite a while outside of core. But that isn't Next's fault. There just isn't the support for 5e right now and won't be for a long time.

They keep low CR monsters a bit more relevant in high numbers now. The trade off being that most boss monsters are far too easy.

They've made intelligence completely useless for anyone who doesn't key off of it. I don't really like how they've made the skill system so simple. The idea of skill dice is kind of clever, though, even if Next didn't do it first. But they have been a little more conscious of not making many classes too MAD.

There are some really bizarre choices, though. Like totally changing the feat system, (you get feats at arbitrary levels and then eventually stop getting feats,) and saves. Most feats do feel a little more interesting than 3.5 feats, with a few exceptions. (Weapon focus is still bland and not strong.) Or randomly gimping point buy. I think they are really trying to encourage 4d6 drop lowest. I don't know why.

The combat advantage system is kind of interesting to see in D&D.

Honestly, I might eventually play a sort of mash up of 3.5 and Next since I like a lot of what they did and don't like a lot of other things.

[TuggyNE]

Sorry, I'd have to disagree here. It's about the only thing I looked at and said to myself 'Now that is a great idea. I'm nabbing that for my current games." It's far more fun and interesting than giving a flat + or - 2 to a roll for special circumstances.
That said, I don't lean on it as much as Next does.

Basically, yeah. It's the only thing so far that (not having the playtest or a group to run it with) has really jumped out at me from the discussions as being a genuinely new and interesting idea.

However, it's not quite as flexible as d20's bonuses and penalties, so I think overuse is undesirable, especially if you get to stacking 3 advantages and 5 disadvantages, only one of which means anything.

[Gwendol]

There are some annoying features, but the game is shaping up. Rogues... not too sure how that will work out (haven't played one lately), the other classes are interesting. Spellcasting at high levels is a LOT more restricted, on the other hand, there are some low level spells that never get "outdated". I've made a rogue/wizard I hope to see in play soon as I think that's one way of making the rogue viable (they really don't get much passed level 10).

[TopCheese]

As of the latest playtest...

Monks are actually fun to play! I mean they can be broken but on the upper side for once! It is kinda refreshing (3.P monk suuucks and 4e monk was decent).

Another class that was fantastic to play was the Fighter. Sure a dwarven Fighter had a crazy ton of HP and almost nigh unkillable (took sneaky skills and herbalism feat... screw the rogue and cleric!) but that is what the fighter should be. Fighter versus Mage can finally get interesting

Barbarian looks very interesting, if you haven't seen it then I urge you to look into it.

Anyways...

Just like when 4e first came out there is a reason why it is to simplified or doesn't have as much options! It is a fricken new system (Next is in production/playtest right now!) of course it is simplified! Saying that is a flaw right now is like saying "psh your car doesn't run it sucks" when I'm building the car from the ground up and I just got the frame in my garage! *sigh*. At one point even 3.5 was just three books.

[Palanan]

I'm running a 3.5 game with the merest sprinkle of Pathfinder on top, and apart from occasionally glancing at threads like this one I'm completely ignoring 5E, or Next, or whatever you call it.

I started playing D&D an absurdly long time ago, and then lapsed for a long while; I completely skipped AD&D and then plunged back into 3.5 many years later. I've always been much more interested in story and character than the subatomic details of a ruleset, so 3.5 with all its defects has become my default game.

When 4E came out...it made absolutely no sense to me. I literally couldn't understand it. In part this is because it's apparently drawing from the conventions and assumptions of online games, none of which I've ever played. And it was absurd how quickly the store shelves filled up with expensive hardcover supplements, which really put me off as a customer.

That experience with 4E makes me far, far less likely to pick up 5E with any serious interest. I have too much I want to do in life, well outside the gaming sphere, to spend time and money and effort comprehending yet another mishmash of arbitrary rules. I'm looking forward to the MIC and Spell Compendium reprints, and I'm slowly drifting into Pathfinder airspace, but I can't see myself ever spending money on 5E.

[JackRackham]

It seems far too simplified for my tastes. It lacks the complexity that 3.5 has, and that's really what I love about 3.5. Mind you, I've only been on the D&D scene for five years now, but I have to say that to me, the system used really does have an effect on the quality of the game; that's not to say that I haven't had fun playing fourth edition, or legend, or so forth, but it's just harder to have as much fun, or to create campaign worlds as diverse and complex as it is in 3.5 (or sometimes pathfinder). As others have mentioned, 5e just doesn't feel like D&D to me.

That being said, I definitely prefer it to fourth edition. I had only just started D&D when 4e came out, but upon purchasing the core rulebooks, I was immediately disappointed, and stuck to 3.5. I feel like 5e is trying to compromise the two systems, rather than make it better than either of them (because as much as I like 3.5, I think we can all agree that it is massively flawed). Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that they seem to have made the game relatively balanced without making it completely ridiculous, but a lot of the flavor really bugs me, and everything's so extremely simplified that I find myself unable to enjoy playtesting it. I don't see why WotC is trying to attract new players by making the game simple. I started D&D when 3.5 was at its most complex, and the myriad options for how to play my characters or run my campaigns that were presented to me are really what attracted me to it.


Sorry for being so terribly long-winded; I'm tired as hell right now, and I fear that what I just wrote is terribly incoherent. Sorry also for ending my post in an apology; seriously, who cares?

I could be wrong here, but I believe the play test thus far consists solely of the d&d basic rule set. That's why I linked to the articles where Mearls discusses what basic, standard, and advanced each hope to accomplish. If what we're seeing is basic, and there will be standard and advanced going progressively deeper than this, I think that's promising. I think what we have is already more interesting than 4th.

[Synovia]

My general opinion of D&D Next is that it's making a slew of mistakes, many of them very painful and obvious missteps. It's all the more aggravating because in many cases I understand what's driving them to make such decisions.

I agree. They're back to "the fighter does more damage" and that sort of line of thinking. Its kind of a mash together of 4E and 3.5, but doesn't do what either edition does nearly as well as that edition does. I'm thinking its going to be a mess.


Meel's philosophy is still "Wizards fight the gods, Fighters deal with the mooks." And thats not the sort of game I want to play.

[Synovia]

Changes are fine, and 3.0->3.5 was good, more of the same, good. But non-compatibility is a big issue if I want to stay current with the ruleset in my setting, but don't want to reinvent the wheel for all my npcs and such.



I can't think of any way to fix the gigantic bucket of problems 3.5 has baked into its core system without making it incompatible.

3.5 is a good system, but it's to the point where if you want to fix its problems, you need to make drastic changes.

[Snowbluff]

Monks are actually fun to play! I mean they can be broken but on the upper side for once! It is kinda refreshing (3.P monk suuucks and 4e monk was decent).


Well, I am not playing Next. I don't want to have a reason to talk to the people that play Monks in my groups. :smalltongue:

[Synovia]

Not really, I'm playing a Psion in a game right now and everyone thinks I'm a wizard... I even have a book that I read after waking up from slumber. The names and abilities don't matter that much, it just depends on what you tell people. If you say "a man in robes and a pouch walks up to you" do your players automatically know that he is a wizard or sorcerer? Does it really change anything if you have the mechanics for a sorcerer but the NPC is a wizard? No. They both cast spells and both can do incredible things that non-casters just can't dream of doing.

Clericzilla, you think the same way as I do. 4E really resonates with me, because you build NPCs/Monsters toward "What does it do" not "Who is it".

Some people take a more simulationist approach (like the poster you're quoting) and need to have the mechanics lead to the fluff.

I'm the same with you. I have no reason to care about how an NPC refreshes his spells, or whether or not hes a prepared caster vs a sorceror type, because its never going to affect the PCs one bit.

I try to whatever crunch fits with my fluff. Some people want the crunch to lead to the fluff. Different strokes I guess.

[JackRackham]

Clericzilla, you think the same way as I do. 4E really resonates with me, because you build NPCs/Monsters toward "What does it do" not "Who is it".

Some people take a more simulationist approach (like the poster you're quoting) and need to have the mechanics lead to the fluff.

I'm the same with you. I have no reason to care about how an NPC refreshes his spells, or whether or not hes a prepared caster vs a sorceror type, because its never going to affect the PCs one bit.

I try to whatever crunch fits with my fluff. Some people want the crunch to lead to the fluff. Different strokes I guess.

Ummm, spontaneous vs prepared might have been a bad example. That definitely affects the course of a battle.

[Seer_of_Heart]

I try to whatever crunch fits with my fluff. Some people want the crunch to lead to the fluff. Different strokes I guess.

I'm definitely one of those people which is why I disagree with Clericzilla. Of course its a game, play it how you want to! I don't tell people they're playing it wrong leading with fluff, but when I play I lead with crunch.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Don't care for it or about it, not participating in the playtests, and kind of hoping it fails miserably.

The snippets I have seen about the rules have all been really horrible, awful decisions. Granted, I haven't been paying much attention the the past half year or so of updates. But I'm skeptical anything has truly changed, as my issues were with the whole core concepts as well as the little things. Also, since the time I *really* stopped paying attention, Monte Cook left the project, and he was basically the One Great Hope of 5E not sucking, for me.

[Darius Kane]

I'm happy with PF/3.X.

Also, this is the wrong board to discuss 5e. There's a thread (or two) just for that in Roleplaying Games, I believe.

[Lappy9001]

D&D Next seems interesting, but I wasn't pleased with the initial play test. My main beef was that they didn't let you build characters (blaster wizard by default didn't work for the 3.0 playtest) and that they seem to overuse the Advantage/Disadvantage system.

I've heard that you can build characters now, so good. And while I think it's used too much, I do like the idea of the Advantage/Disadvantage.

Now, I like both 3.5 and 4e. I like that 3.5 has Labyrinthine mechanics where you can potentially do anything if you're willing to work your concept into the rules (it's like a puzzle!). I don't like that they were apparently afraid to give people nice things and races are a bore.

I like that 4e is streamlined and fairly easy to jump into. You can do awesome things even at low-levels and races can be incredibly awesome. I also like the multi-class feat mechanics, so you can describe your class without 15 dips into differenc classes and prestige classes. Fighters also have a role now, as "hitting guys with a big metal stick" is not a role. However, it does feel a little too streamlined at times and many classes play similar. Also I never really got a handle on healing surges and I often find the Power system to be a lackluster choice in game design.

But hey, both versions got better with supplemental material, so I'll wager D&D Next will too. I'll wait until it can build up some before jumping in.

[Yora]

The first playtest versions started very strong, but soon they fell back into the old pattern of heaping on more and more cool stuff, with more dice rolling, and mandatory customization, and so on.
I will probably still look at the next two playtest versions, but I don't expect much more from it.

Instead, I've recently got back to tailoring Pathfinder to me needs. Seems a much more worthwile endeavor.

[SowZ]

Oh, and instead of a bonus feat humans now get +2 to any stat of your choice and +1 to every other stat. Most races get a +2, a -2, and similar racial abilities to what they already have. So humans still dominate.

[Greenish]

Would it still be D&D if humans weren't the best race? :smallcool:

[Synovia]

Oh, and instead of a bonus feat humans now get +2 to any stat of your choice and +1 to every other stat. Most races get a +2, a -2, and similar racial abilities to what they already have. So humans still dominate.

I hate the +2 to stat stuff on races. I really do... it essentially turns race selection into a minmax exercise. Who is going to make an Orc (or whatever) witch doctor when they get a wisdom penalty? It turns some really cool ideas into mechanical messes.

I'd love to see races as flavor things... more of the "Gnomes can talk to burrowing animals" sort of stuff, and less of "+2 to dex". Give each race a couple of minor powers and make them distinctive.

[Lappy9001]

I hate the +2 to stat stuff on races. I really do... it essentially turns race selection into a minmax exercise. Who is going to make an Orc (or whatever) witch doctor when they get a wisdom penalty? It turns some really cool ideas into mechanical messes.

I'd love to see races as flavor things... more of the "Gnomes can talk to burrowing animals" sort of stuff, and less of "+2 to dex". Give each race a couple of minor powers and make them distinctive.Well, removing penalties alleviates that significantly. It instead becomes a neat little benefit, even if it doesn't directly impact your build. For example, half-elves in 4e get +2 Con +2 Cha. Hell yes I'll take that extra HP playing a Bard or Sorcerer (and healing surge).

[Seer_of_Heart]

Oh, and instead of a bonus feat humans now get +2 to any stat of your choice and +1 to every other stat. Most races get a +2, a -2, and similar racial abilities to what they already have. So humans still dominate.

:smallannoyed: Why do humans have to be the best race in general, yes there are options to optimize other races but they typically use semi obscure ACFs. It is not worth trading a net -3 to one stat and a net -1 to other stats relative to a human for a couple of racial benefits.

[JackRackham]

I'm happy with PF/3.X.

Also, this is the wrong board to discuss 5e. There's a thread (or two) just for that in Roleplaying Games, I believe.

This is the right board, however, if I'm addressing the question specifically to fans of 3.5 (ie, people who, in a broad sense, tend to share my approach to d&d). And I'm not trying to discuss specifics. I'm looking to gauge how it's being received by people with whom I share the aforementioned similarity.

[Mithril Leaf]

It's far too balanced for my tastes, what initially drew me to 3.5 was hearing about all the absurd tricks you could do from the early levels on. I distinctly remember the breaking a ladder in half trick as greatly interesting at the time. Now the absurdly massive amount of supplementary material is letting me breath new life into the 3.5 that goes on in my mind when character building for fun.

[StreamOfTheSky]

If the OP was posted in a 5E thread, I would have never seen it, as I'm guessing is the same for many people in this thread.

[Draz74]

I'm following Next, but not playtesting it -- on the rare occasions I manage to cajole my friends into making time for RPGing, I use that precious time to playtest my own homebrew. Overall, from the direction Next is heading, I highly doubt (sadly) that it will become one of my top 4 favorite systems.


Unfortunately, 4E as a whole leaves a sour taste in my mouth; it has never felt like Dungeons & Dragons to me, but rather a different game wearing a skin that doesn't fit. That's something that still disappoints me about Legend; it's a new game and it doesn't land in that same mindspace D&D did. I don't know that anything ever will. :smallannoyed:.
Yeah, I love Legend (and certainly 4e has its strengths), but they don't feel like D&D to me either. (Legend is too ... rule-of-cool, too cartoony, to entirely take over for D&D for me.) But my hopes remain high for a balanced game to eventually be able to fill this void. :smallwink:


Sorry, I'd have to disagree here. It's about the only thing I looked at and said to myself 'Now that is a great idea. I'm nabbing that for my current games." It's far more fun and interesting than giving a flat + or - 2 to a roll for special circumstances.
That said, I don't lean on it as much as Next does.


Basically, yeah. It's the only thing so far that (not having the playtest or a group to run it with) has really jumped out at me from the discussions as being a genuinely new and interesting idea.

However, it's not quite as flexible as d20's bonuses and penalties, so I think overuse is undesirable, especially if you get to stacking 3 advantages and 5 disadvantages, only one of which means anything.

Agree with these opinions -- although I don't know if Advantage/Disadvantage can strictly be called a "new" mechanic, considering there are similar things in SWSE. Admittedly, those mechanics seem to have been mostly forgotten about by 4e and other more-recent designers.


Would it still be D&D if humans weren't the best race? :smallcool:
Yes. Humans were lame pre-3e. Their only advantage was not having level-limits ... and in the rare game that played at high levels in those days, houseruling away those limits was just as common as houseruling away Multiclass XP Penalties in 3e.


Oh, and instead of a bonus feat humans now get +2 to any stat of your choice and +1 to every other stat. Most races get a +2, a -2, and similar racial abilities to what they already have. So humans still dominate.
This is particularly ridiculous since the old standard of D&D is that other races' ability mods are calculated with respect to humanity's. So effectively, Next is really just giving most races a -1 penalty to most of their ability scores. :smallyuk:


I hate the +2 to stat stuff on races. I really do... it essentially turns race selection into a minmax exercise. Who is going to make an Orc (or whatever) witch doctor when they get a wisdom penalty? It turns some really cool ideas into mechanical messes.
Next actually came within spitting distance of solving this problem, when they came up with the idea of Classes actually giving you ability modifiers as well. If only the racial bonuses and the class bonuses didn't stack, I would have been quite impressed with this change. Suddenly, a Halfling Wizard's ability scores work just fine ... it doesn't matter that the Halfling doesn't have an INT bonus, because he can just get an INT bonus from Wizard instead, and they wouldn't have stacked anyway. So halfling wizards (for example) are left just as intelligent as other wizards, but more dexterous ... now that's actually an interesting difference.

Sadly, the non-stacking idea didn't go very far, and now we're back to a game where no one will want to play a Halfling Wizard.


I'd love to see races as flavor things... more of the "Gnomes can talk to burrowing animals" sort of stuff, and less of "+2 to dex". Give each race a couple of minor powers and make them distinctive.
Yeah, I don't mind a little combat-boost type of racial features, but on the whole, this is the way to go.

[navar100]

Would it still be D&D if humans weren't the best race? :smallcool:

Anything before 3E.

[Phelix-Mu]

Anything before 3E.

I will echo that humans have become a little too cool as 3.5 went on. And strongheart halflings? Always seemed a little too arbitrary.

Don't get me wrong, the flavor for 3e and humans getting nice 1st level benefits was cool, racial aptitude for quick mastery and such, but the mechanic became way too influential, imho. But I'm hardly an unbiased voice, as demihumans have been my go-to choice since that was actually a game term. It's nice that humans get a benefit before high levels now, but some kind of restriction on the feat or racial drawback...eh, w/e, I'm slipping back into my hatred of humanity.:smallfrown:

So, the real question is is it more of the same for racial differences in 5e, or are they breaking new ground? To say that there is an extreme issue with falling into a the same old rut is an understatement. I kind of feel like they need to crowdsource their development, and not just the playtesting, more, but I'm not particularly familiar in how they are doing stuff.

[Soranar]

Personally, the main draws of 3.5 can't possibly be emulated by a new edition.

having access to virtually every book ever printed through a simple google search means that 3.5 is the most diverse and affordable game bar none. It's also as complicated or simple as you wish it to be since you can choose how many splatbooks you play with, whether or not to include dragon material or pathfinder material.

all in all, for the same reasons a high tier class is good, 3.5 is good: It`s versatile.

Maybe in a few years, once a new edition is well established, I'd be tempted to switch but, for now, I'm not going anywhere.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Sorry, I'd have to disagree here. It's about the only thing I looked at and said to myself 'Now that is a great idea. I'm nabbing that for my current games." It's far more fun and interesting than giving a flat + or - 2 to a roll for special circumstances.
That said, I don't lean on it as much as Next does.

/Digression.Oh, it's certainly an interesting system. I actually found it interesting and cool when I first heard about it. I just don't like that it's applied to so many things, when rolling twice and take the best result/worst result is such a powerful buff/debuff.

e.g.
A 30% chance to hit becomes a 51% chance to hit with advantage
A 70% chance to hit becomes a 49% chance to hit with disadvantage.

I'd imagine critical hits are even more hilariously affected by advantage/disadvantage.