PDA

View Full Version : D&D Next. What do you think?



newfrickinshow
2013-05-31, 04:22 PM
I've just signed up for the playtest and have begun downloading the material and while I wait I figure it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask the community that beat me to it what they think. Since I've been cut off from the nerd community to some extent lately and haven't heard much about it I was just curious.

Anderlith
2013-05-31, 04:26 PM
I've just signed up for the playtest and have begun downloading the material and while I wait I figure it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask the community that beat me to it what they think. Since I've been cut off from the nerd community to some extent lately and haven't heard much about it I was just curious.

It's just another flavor of D&D. Several parts of it are depressing, the other parts are okay-ish. No real eureka! improvement to it yet

Water_Bear
2013-05-31, 04:31 PM
You know there is a thread about this already right? Granted it's a gigantic edition-war mess, but it still exists on this very subforum.

So far it seems like it has the potential to achieve it's goal and unify the fanbase, albeit through boredom.

Dienekes
2013-05-31, 04:51 PM
You know there is a thread about this already right? Granted it's a gigantic edition-war mess, but it still exists on this very subforum.

So far it seems like it has the potential to achieve it's goal and unify the fanbase, albeit through boredom.

Ehh, to be fair if I just wanted a rough opinion of folks on 5e I wouldn't use the 5e thread either. That place is scary, annoying, and reminds me all too much of a kindergarten.

In any case, my opinion. Ehh. I prefer 3.5 to 4e so I like that they're returning a bit to that kind of model. However, they so far don't seem to be fixing any of the obvious problems that 3.5 did have. Also everything feels fairly dull, unpolished, and the math still seems to be wonky.

ImperiousLeader
2013-05-31, 05:19 PM
I'm currently rather indifferent. Everything is still in such a state of flux that it's hard to get a clear notion of what the edition is about. There's a few things I like, some in need of polish, and some really bad ideas.

The main problem I'm seeing is the d20 and bounded accuracy is making PCs look less awesome. As in, your success or failure is purely a whim of the dice, I don't find a +1 vs a +3 WIS check to be all that interesting.

newfrickinshow
2013-05-31, 05:25 PM
I apologize for the duplicate thread but of the ones that weren't about specific topics in 3.75, 5E, Next, NXT, etc. I looked for generic threads on the board and and the newest post was only 10 days old but I was looking for (for lack of a better term) fresher opinions. Sometimes on those longer threads you get opinions a bit prejudiced by other opinions and it can become a bit of a confusing fustercluck.

But anyway, it seems that the general opinion is that there is some promise and has some good potential to be pretty good if the kinks can be worked out. I'm reading the material now and just out of curiosity I'm going to ask about the one thing I felt the most neglected in 4E to see if it's been addressed. I've never done it myself but I've seen and heard so many tales about awesome characters using mounted combat. Anybody know if the new version has addressed that at all?

russdm
2013-05-31, 05:28 PM
Ehh, to be fair if I just wanted a rough opinion of folks on 5e I wouldn't use the 5e thread either. That place is scary, annoying, and reminds me all too much of a kindergarten.

Didn't you know? The forums here is kindergarten and that facts amuses me so very much.

As for myself, I am adopting a wait and see approach to 5E. While I was willing to play 3.5, i was not impressed and found it rather too annoying. As for 4E, it had potential that it squandered in trying to be too new and different. I would rather mess around with the playtest, but pass judgement until the finished product came out.

A side note: One game system i am eagerly waiting for is Star Wars Edge of the Empire. It seems to be moving away from the standard sw game models of having heavy jedi involvement and rules balance and making it so you can have fun not playing a jedi as much. or atleast it looks like something new and fun to play.

Morty
2013-05-31, 05:31 PM
My interest in D&D Next is mostly morbid curiosity. I don't think I've ever seen a design process as uninspired and lacking in any sort of vision as what the D&D Next playtests and articles are showing us. So far the only result I can imagine is that after it's released, everyone just shrugs and goes back to playing their preferred edition of D&D, or other system.

tbok1992
2013-05-31, 05:54 PM
Well, I think some of the ideas it introduced are good (Exploration rules baked into classes, subraces-as-default, Fighter make-your-own-maneuvers) but they need a helluva lot more work.

Though, judging from Devteam comments, it seems as if they've finally found the actual direction/design goals they want to go for (Which I think seems to be relatively adjustable, light rules with an emphasis on Fluff and old-school style).

I think that's what they mean when they say they're nearly done, rather than talking about balance, which has gaping flaws in it (Like how far they Nerfed the fighter and the Skill system) and still needs waaaaaay more polish. I'm pretty sure that Peasant Vs. Asmodeus is going to be the new Cat Vs. Commoner for a while.

Rhynn
2013-05-31, 07:28 PM
From the buzzwordy name (at least it's not "D&D U") to the original design goal ("Unify people under one edition by combining them all even though that is going to result in something no one likes better than their current edition), it's a great example of how to have corporate weasels ruin your project before it's even taken off. I expect a bland, uninnovative blend of multiple editions that has nothing to recommend it over any of the others, all of which will be more focused on some specific aspect halfheartedly integrated into 5E.

The few "new" things they've sorta done have already been done by games like Adventurer Conqueror King and Dungeon Crawl Classics, which aren't compromised by waffling and constantly rewriting everything based on randomly interpreting essentially random playtester feedback.

Just to Browse
2013-05-31, 07:36 PM
Semi-Related Question: Instead of writing Dungeons and Dragons 6th Edition (which will come after this terrible-ness ends), would you oppose/favor the new name being "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition"?

Maybe it's just because I liked third edition, but the number 6 seems so high.

Water_Bear
2013-05-31, 07:46 PM
Semi-Related Question: Instead of writing Dungeons and Dragons 6th Edition (which will come after this terrible-ness ends), would you oppose/favor the new name being "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition"?

Maybe it's just because I liked third edition, but the number 6 seems so high.

Technically 3.X and 4e are AD&D; the Basic line got dragged out back and shot just before WotC took over, from what little gaming history I remember. And unless I'm very very lucky Next will also be Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.

Anderlith
2013-05-31, 07:46 PM
Nah it'll be called "New" D&D or D&D Zero.

Most likely they will just call it D&D & 6th Edition will just be a small subtitle.

When I talk about D&D I'm talking about 3.5 but I don't say "3.5" every time I do. Though I do call 4th Edition "4E" Instead of D&D :/

russdm
2013-05-31, 07:53 PM
Any advanced edition of 3.5 needs to correct its problems of which are many. There are times honestly that i feel that the 3rd/3.5 designers just copied stuff over without figuring out why it worked the way that it did.

When i usually talk about D&D, I find that i am mainly referring to 2nd Edition AD&D and need to add in the 3.5 otherwise i automatically assume anything i say is related to 2nd Edition.

I see 4th Edition being a part of D&D, so i will always call it D&D 4E or just 4E for short.

As for D&D Next, it feels like it is trying to bring back the bad sacred cows of 3.5 without figuring out why they didn't work as planned. And then adding in all of the 4th Edition material.

Even more pressing, why are nerfs appearing for skills and fighters and not for Tier 1s? How can justify nerfing fighters and skills when giving cheeseblocks to wizards/druids? Wasn't that 3.5's major fundamental flaw?

newfrickinshow
2013-05-31, 07:54 PM
Nah it'll be called "New" D&D or D&D Zero.:/

How does D&D EXTREME! work for you?

Felandria
2013-05-31, 07:59 PM
Didn't the fighters get those bonus dice, or were those taken away?

Also, NO SORCERER, NO PEACE!

Anderlith
2013-05-31, 08:08 PM
How does D&D EXTREME! work for you?

No no, Marketing says that that will scare off the kids, & if we know anything, it's that WotC wants to get as many new people into the game as possible

Rhynn
2013-05-31, 08:23 PM
Technically 3.X and 4e are AD&D; the Basic line got dragged out back and shot just before WotC took over, from what little gaming history I remember. And unless I'm very very lucky Next will also be Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.

Yup. The connection between AD&D 2E and D&D 3E is very strong (especially looking at Combat & Tactics and the rest of Player's Option for 2E).

When there's only one line of D&D, calling it "Advanced" doesn't make a lot of sense. It was Advanced to separate it from Basic (of B/X and later BECMI).


Maybe it's just because I liked third edition, but the number 6 seems so high.

RuneQuest has already beat D&D to sixth edition (and fourth publisher), my 1998 edition of Call of Cthulhu is 5.5 (Chaosium beat WotC to that one), and so on. Edition ain't nuthin' but a number.


Nah it'll be called "New" D&D or D&D Zero.

:smallamused:

Dienekes
2013-05-31, 08:27 PM
A side note: One game system i am eagerly waiting for is Star Wars Edge of the Empire. It seems to be moving away from the standard sw game models of having heavy jedi involvement and rules balance and making it so you can have fun not playing a jedi as much. or atleast it looks like something new and fun to play.

It may be the best game of all time, but I will never know. Because I refuse to pay for a game that had people pay to playtest it. That is ridiculous and turned me off the system.

Oh and so I return to talking about 5e.

What gets me, is for all that I didn't really enjoy playing 4e as a whole. I will admit they had some good ideas, giving fighters fun things to do is one of the big ones in my book. What happened? We're supposed to move ahead not backtrack.

Scow2
2013-05-31, 10:23 PM
It may be the best game of all time, but I will never know. Because I refuse to pay for a game that had people pay to playtest it. That is ridiculous and turned me off the system.

Oh and so I return to talking about 5e.

What gets me, is for all that I didn't really enjoy playing 4e as a whole. I will admit they had some good ideas, giving fighters fun things to do is one of the big ones in my book. What happened? We're supposed to move ahead not backtrack.

4e put WAY too much emphasis on combat and made it too slow. When the average encounter's supposed to take an hour of play, something's wrong. D&D Next trims encounter speed to ~5-15 minutes, so you can focus on not fighting and get back to the important parts of exploring, loot-sorting, loot-stealing, trap-dodging, dungeon-delving, and political-shanghaing.

They've also cut down drastically on the number of spell slots casters can have, and restricted their options. Unfortunately, spells don't scale well.

Dienekes
2013-05-31, 10:54 PM
4e put WAY too much emphasis on combat and made it too slow. When the average encounter's supposed to take an hour of play, something's wrong. D&D Next trims encounter speed to ~5-15 minutes, so you can focus on not fighting and get back to the important parts of exploring, loot-sorting, loot-stealing, trap-dodging, dungeon-delving, and political-shanghaing.

They've also cut down drastically on the number of spell slots casters can have, and restricted their options. Unfortunately, spells don't scale well.

This is true. Not entirely sure what it has to do with my post since giving fighters interesting things to do by no means means that all combat needs to be dragged out for hours.

Scow2
2013-05-31, 11:38 PM
This is true. Not entirely sure what it has to do with my post since giving fighters interesting things to do by no means means that all combat needs to be dragged out for hours.
4e gave everyone too many actions in combat, making turns take a long time to resolve. I see this a lot in 3.X as well, when you have to resolve not just an attack and damage but rider effects as well, and multiple actions per round (And tracking the action economy), then having to ask "Done?" because it's hard to tell what actions they're interested in taking. I think the fighter expertise dice is a "good enough" thing for fighters, though I feel it should be a lot more flexible (Choose what your spending it on when you use the dice, not when you level up)

Morty
2013-06-01, 04:25 AM
What gets me, is for all that I didn't really enjoy playing 4e as a whole. I will admit they had some good ideas, giving fighters fun things to do is one of the big ones in my book. What happened? We're supposed to move ahead not backtrack.

I honestly don't see a lot of fourth edition in D&D Next. It's mostly the d20 chassis with some things glued on.

Also, apparently, giving fighters nice things means making them too complicated. Which doesn't stop them from filling pages with wizard, cleric and druid spells... it's amazing to see that they've learned absolutely nothing.

TuggyNE
2013-06-01, 06:17 AM
I honestly don't see a lot of fourth edition in D&D Next. It's mostly the d20 chassis with some things glued on.

So far, %E seems to unite the fanbase chiefly in noticing things in it that appear to be borrowed from their least-favorite editions.

Dienekes
2013-06-01, 07:47 AM
4e gave everyone too many actions in combat, making turns take a long time to resolve. I see this a lot in 3.X as well, when you have to resolve not just an attack and damage but rider effects as well, and multiple actions per round (And tracking the action economy), then having to ask "Done?" because it's hard to tell what actions they're interested in taking. I think the fighter expertise dice is a "good enough" thing for fighters, though I feel it should be a lot more flexible (Choose what your spending it on when you use the dice, not when you level up)

Yes, things can go overboard. But interesting things does not make things take too long. Hell in 3.5 I can generally resolve a combat in under 20 minutes, and that had extensive spell lists and I always throw in ToB just so fighter types get interesting things to do. Now whether you like that book or not it did give the melee types interesting and useful abilities and combat still resolves fast.

And if you don't like that example, you can look at Saga Edition. Where every class gets more cool things as they level up and combat still goes by very fast. Or for the same genre, FantasyCraft where fighter types have tricks they can add as riders to their melee attacks that also resolve things pretty fast.

Expertise Dice could be good enough, if they actually did anything interesting. They really don't, a lot of them are just things that a fighter could do for free in 3.5 (bull rush, trip, disarm, ect.), and all of them are simply pathetically weak.

Emmerask
2013-06-01, 07:53 AM
My interest in D&D Next is mostly morbid curiosity. I don't think I've ever seen a design process as uninspired and lacking in any sort of vision as what the D&D Next playtests and articles are showing us. So far the only result I can imagine is that after it's released, everyone just shrugs and goes back to playing their preferred edition of D&D, or other system.

sadly I agree.

EvanWaters
2013-06-01, 01:47 PM
I'd be okay with it being nothing like 4e if I had a feeling that there was a really strong, coherent vision for it, and it provided something I hadn't been able to do with D&D before.

Instead it's looking like a crazy quilt of random legacy mechanics patched together with some new stuff.

Also it's been over a year and they still haven't solved the problem of what the fighter gets that makes them balanced with casters but isn't AEDU. This should have been job #1.

archaeo
2013-06-04, 03:05 AM
Certainly, if you're focused on the rules minutiae as they exist today, there are problems; one only has to skim the eight billion forum threads across the Internet to get a good idea that everybody takes issue with one thing or another, though a lot of that is inevitable anyway. The playtest as it exists right now is not a very polished RPG, by most accounts.But I still feel really optimistic about it. If you take the designers at their word (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130128), they're looking for something that has scalable granularity, a system that allows for players to do the things they want to do while maintaining a solid framework of balanced core rules. Since very few/none of the "modules" or "dials" have been released, I think it's safe to say that a lot of the things that will make this an exciting version of the game are still being perfected. That's the hope, anyway.

Honestly, I don't get why the playtests have drawn so much negativity, both here and elsewhere. Even though the game's still pretty wonky, I appreciate the rigorous playtesting. Of course, I haven't followed it from its inception; has so little changed since the playtest started that people have just despaired?

Kurald Galain
2013-06-04, 03:54 AM
5E's main "feature" is that by design, level-20 characters are not a lot better at anything (attacks, skills, saving throws) than level-1 characters. Other than this premise, it doesn't contain anything that's not found in earlier editions. Frankly I have found zero reason so far to recommend it over other versions of D&D.

Zerter
2013-06-04, 04:01 AM
I am just going to try it out when it is released with the group I play with. Hopefully it will also lead to people coming back or new people being interested. I can not take all the negative stuff seriously, a lot of people seem to be looking for stuff to hate about it. It might be good, it might be bad, no way to know at this point.

TuggyNE
2013-06-04, 04:24 AM
5E's main "feature" is that by design, level-20 characters are not a lot better at anything (attacks, skills, saving throws) than level-1 characters.

Yeah, that's one of those things that sounds good at first, until you stop and think about it, and realize just what all that means.

Kurald Galain
2013-06-04, 04:32 AM
It might be good, it might be bad, no way to know at this point.
Except a full year of open playtest documents, of course :smallamused:

Jerthanis
2013-06-04, 04:33 AM
Whatever your feelings are about any specific edition of D&D... Original, Basic, Advanced, Advanced 2nd edition, BECMI, 3rd/3.5, 4E... each of them can be mined for ideas.

Whether it's a way encumberence was measured in OD&D, or how XP charts were generated in Basic, the tactical spatial mapping of 3.5, push, pull, and similar powers from 4e, 3.5 Psionic power points exported as a 'mana' resource for regular spellcasters, or how Diseases interact with the Heal skill in 4e... there's always something unique to a specific system you can read in the mechanics of these different iterations of D&D that seem like genuinely good ideas.

I think D&D Next is shaping up to be a combo breaker in this respect. I have seen nothing in D&D Next that seems like a good idea from any point of view.

russdm
2013-06-04, 08:24 PM
I have found that 5e is starting to have the bad feel of went wrong with 3.5 that caused it to tank.

The designers have no idea what they are doing.

Seriously, despite having previous editions to mine from, they apparently took no time in determing what actually worked and was fun from those previous editions. It appears instead that they are trying to throw darts at a flock of birds and failing some.

Turalisj
2013-06-05, 03:46 AM
No no, Marketing says that that will scare off the kids, & if we know anything, it's that WotC wants to get as many new people into the game as possible

Dungeons and Dragon 1(piece). With an anime made by 4kids and a trading card game produced by Hasbro. Elves will all looks like supermodels, orcs will look like something from World of Warcraft, and haflings will sing educational songs.

SiuiS
2013-06-05, 06:21 AM
My interest in D&D Next is mostly morbid curiosity. I don't think I've ever seen a design process as uninspired and lacking in any sort of vision as what the D&D Next playtests and articles are showing us. So far the only result I can imagine is that after it's released, everyone just shrugs and goes back to playing their preferred edition of D&D, or other system.

*shrug* yeah...


No no, Marketing says that that will scare off the kids, & if we know anything, it's that WotC wants to get as many new people into the game as possible

The answer is obvious. Dungeons & Diesel: Yu-Gi-Pone. Characters are a group of five adventurers wielded by card playing ponies on motorcycles.


I think the fighter expertise dice is a "good enough" thing for fighters, though I feel it should be a lot more flexible (Choose what your spending it on when you use the dice, not when you level up)

Aye.


Certainly, if you're focused on the rules minutiae as they exist today, there are problems; one only has to skim the eight billion forum threads across the Internet to get a good idea that everybody takes issue with one thing or another, though a lot of that is inevitable anyway. The playtest as it exists right now is not a very polished RPG, by most accounts.But I still feel really optimistic about it. If you take the designers at their word (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130128), they're looking for something that has scalable granularity, a system that allows for players to do the things they want to do while maintaining a solid framework of balanced core rules. Since very few/none of the "modules" or "dials" have been released, I think it's safe to say that a lot of the things that will make this an exciting version of the game are still being perfected. That's the hope, anyway.

Honestly, I don't get why the playtests have drawn so much negativity, both here and elsewhere. Even though the game's still pretty wonky, I appreciate the rigorous playtesting. Of course, I haven't followed it from its inception; has so little changed since the playtest started that people have just despaired?

Aye. I understand the implied behind-the-curtain well enough to be optimistic. I think the big trouble is every time they have something cool, they remove it when they release the next packet. I think it's so they can test different things in isolation. Other, less optimistic people think it's because WotC is full of wads.


5E's main "feature" is that by design, level-20 characters are not a lot better at anything (attacks, skills, saving throws) than level-1 characters. Other than this premise, it doesn't contain anything that's not found in earlier editions. Frankly I have found zero reason so far to recommend it over other versions of D&D.

Not so on attacking or saves. Skills are pretty lackluster though.



I think D&D Next is shaping up to be a combo breaker in this respect. I have seen nothing in D&D Next that seems like a good idea from any point of view.

I dunno. Hit dice healing is an elegant solution to how to give everyone healing but that represents the implied sturdiness of their class, and something I've even idly working on since since early 3.0. Fighter combat dice are a golden ticket that WotC has smeared with feces, packages in rusty razors, and offered in happy meals; a great idea that is under-utilized and handled poorly when shown at all.

Kurald Galain
2013-06-05, 08:13 AM
Not so on attacking or saves. Skills are pretty lackluster though.

Absolutely so on attacking or saves. The fighter gets a whopping +4 increase in attack bonus over 19 levels, and that's the biggest of the bunch. Most characters get only +2 better on attacking over their career (not counting magical weapons, which by the current rules are utterly random). Saving throws are just ability checks and do not increase by level at all (except for getting +1 to some abilities every 4 levels, which is +0.5 on the roll).

obryn
2013-06-05, 08:37 AM
Absolutely so on attacking or saves. The fighter gets a whopping +4 increase in attack bonus over 19 levels, and that's the biggest of the bunch. Most characters get only +2 better on attacking over their career (not counting magical weapons, which by the current rules are utterly random). Saving throws are just ability checks and do not increase by level at all (except for getting +1 to some abilities every 4 levels, which is +0.5 on the roll).
The idea is that you get better in ways that aren't just attack roll bonuses. It's actually a good idea, IMO.

The execution, though? Ummmm.... :smallsigh:


The answer is obvious. Dungeons & Diesel: Yu-Gi-Pone. Characters are a group of five adventurers wielded by card playing ponies on motorcycles.
You could run that in FATE Accelerated!

-O

Morty
2013-06-05, 09:35 AM
The idea is that you get better in ways that aren't just attack roll bonuses. It's actually a good idea, IMO.

The execution, though? Ummmm.... :smallsigh:


It is a pretty good idea. The part they can't seem to get right is, well, giving the characters ways to get better that aren't attack bonuses. They took the big bonuses but haven't replaced them with anything yet. So... halfway there? :smalltongue:

MukkTB
2013-06-05, 11:02 AM
Looking at the playtest releases and trying to reverse engineer what they are doing is impossible. Maybe they are just generating data, and will be geniuses at parsing that data to make something great. Maybe they're throwing **** at a dartboard and seeing what sticks. Maybe they're morons. We won't know until a finished product comes.

However going by what they have to say, and the contents of their tests its not looking great. Their vision seems to be sorely lacking and they just can't seem to say the right thing. The 'unite the playerbase under our edition,' thing isn't a vision. Its a marketing goal. We've lost market share to competing editions. We want all the market share. Its laughable.

SiuiS
2013-06-05, 11:16 AM
Absolutely so on attacking or saves. The fighter gets a whopping +4 increase in attack bonus over 19 levels, and that's the biggest of the bunch. Most characters get only +2 better on attacking over their career (not counting magical weapons, which by the current rules are utterly random). Saving throws are just ability checks and do not increase by level at all (except for getting +1 to some abilities every 4 levels, which is +0.5 on the roll).

By around 9th level you're all but guaranteed a refill on every attack, damage roll, and most saves. This skews the average for a d20 from 10 to 15, meanin the fighter is rolling 19+ on average, discounting strength or dexterity. That's not bad. It's certainly better than the 14 you are expecting, because the nature of the curve makes rolling under 15 so atrociously unlikely as to reduce the old 5% chance of a 1 to something in the <1% range.


The idea is that you get better in ways that aren't just attack roll bonuses. It's actually a good idea, IMO.

The execution, though? Ummmm.... :smallsigh:

Aye. Every martial class gets melee rerolls, but slow. And saves are too spotty, with not enough guarantee to base the system off of it.



You could run that in FATE Accelerated!


That you say this as if it were a good thin is terrifying. Thanks for the nightmare fuel, hon XD

obryn
2013-06-05, 11:26 AM
It is a pretty good idea. The part they can't seem to get right is, well, giving the characters ways to get better that aren't attack bonuses. They took the big bonuses but haven't replaced them with anything yet. So... halfway there? :smalltongue:
Ayup. Exactly. And the problem is, if you're only going halfway, you're ending up with ... nothing.

I thought it sounded like a great idea. I still like the basic concept - that scaling is primarily from hit points, damage, and abilities. But hit points aren't scaling enough, damage is outpacing hit points so far it's wasted, and abilities are ... well, really abilities aren't, and that's the problem.


And saves are too spotty, with not enough guarantee to base the system off of it.
Yeah, if they don't solve the save-scaling... Well, save-or-suck should never be a coin flip, IMO. I thought HP thresholds were a very good idea that fit into their scale-by-hit-points concept.


That you say this as if it were a good thin is terrifying. Thanks for the nightmare fuel, hon XD
Any time!

-O

SiuiS
2013-06-05, 11:44 AM
Their benchmarks are funny, too. You're supposed to advance at 7, 9 and 12 or something, right? It should be easy to dole out the raw data for those benchmarks, find a nice average, and plug that into the system as a "this tall to ride" number. First wave of save or suck spells should use the 7th level HP scale, using cleric/rogue as baseline (so fighters come out ahead). Etc.

D20 has some inherent faults see monsters having too high an attack bonus at low levels but it also has a working window, and it's not a hard window to hit.


EDIT: the save scaling isn't the problem. The problem is a system designed to deal with Advantage, without actually giving anyone Advantage. This is where fighters shine. A high level fighter with advantage rolls 4d20 an keeps the best result! That drastically skews his odds from 50/50 to fail once in a while. That's beautiful!

Saves have sketchy reroll capability. Some spells grant it, one ability I can think of, and that's it.

Skills, likewise, only worse; the language of skills is "give 'em advantage whenever the hay it makes sense" but there are no guidelines, and there is no cogent and concise explanation of what advantage is, so you can't tell if it makes sense.

Over all, it's not the scaling. It's the half-assed application.

Kurald Galain
2013-06-05, 03:00 PM
By around 9th level you're all but guaranteed a refill on every attack, damage roll, and most saves.
Same principle holds, though. Assuming the break comes at level 9, then a level-8 character is not noticeably better at anything than a level-1 character; and a level-20 charcter is not noticeably better than a level-9 character. The issue is the lack of progress.

Anderlith
2013-06-05, 05:33 PM
I wouldn't mind if they added a second layer of the game that is based on cards, I have no clue what it could be but if it worked it would be cool.

Maybe have a character sheet that was also a card mat, & you could "equip" cards like Status Effects, or Equipment giving you a bonus... it would make the game much more "gamey" though.... Just a thought.

Turalisj
2013-06-05, 05:54 PM
I wouldn't mind if they added a second layer of the game that is based on cards, I have no clue what it could be but if it worked it would be cool.

I would never touch DnD Next. Ever. TCG is the last thing that needs to be added to what is already glutted with minis.

obryn
2013-06-05, 05:54 PM
I would never touch DnD Next. Ever. TCG is the last thing that needs to be added to what is already glutted with minis.
No way on collectible ones. But non-collectible cards have been doing good things to games since at least TORG.

-O

VeliciaL
2013-06-05, 06:01 PM
I wouldn't mind if they added a second layer of the game that is based on cards, I have no clue what it could be but if it worked it would be cool.

Maybe have a character sheet that was also a card mat, & you could "equip" cards like Status Effects, or Equipment giving you a bonus... it would make the game much more "gamey" though.... Just a thought.

People are already complaining about how it's possible to play 4th edition like this. :smallconfused:

Anderlith
2013-06-05, 08:00 PM
I would never touch DnD Next. Ever. TCG is the last thing that needs to be added to what is already glutted with minis.

Not a Trading Card Game. Just cards that represent things in the game. & yes I said that it would make D&D far more "gamey" then most people want.

SiuiS
2013-06-06, 01:18 AM
Same principle holds, though. Assuming the break comes at level 9, then a level-8 character is not noticeably better at anything than a level-1 character; and a level-20 charcter is not noticeably better than a level-9 character. The issue is the lack of progress.

Not really. The abilities are spread out. A cleric has it by 9th, but fighters get it at 5th. It's an actual, sound and workable system! I expect them to either fail to flesh it out properly or remove it entirely.

Maybe that's the problem? Next is less a game, and more a d20 frame with a bunch of subsystems.

DMMike
2013-06-06, 01:38 AM
Absolutely so on attacking or saves. The fighter gets a whopping +4 increase in attack bonus over 19 levels, and that's the biggest of the bunch. Most characters get only +2 better on attacking over their career (not counting magical weapons, which by the current rules are utterly random). Saving throws are just ability checks and do not increase by level at all (except for getting +1 to some abilities every 4 levels, which is +0.5 on the roll).

Yup. Makes you wish there were an RPG that allowed the fighter to choose how much attack bonus he gets. Or removed saving throws in favor of skills. Or didn't require 20+ lines of notes for first level characters. You know, I think I have heard of one...

Turalisj
2013-06-06, 01:45 AM
Yup. Makes you wish there were an RPG that allowed the fighter to choose how much attack bonus he gets. Or removed saving throws in favor of skills. Or didn't require 20+ lines of notes for first level characters. You know, I think I have heard of one...

Freeform?

Closest I've come to a system I like is a toss up between Legend and Mutants and Masterminds 3e.

Ichneumon
2013-06-06, 01:47 AM
I actually enjoyed it and the rules look like interesting. I'm certainly going to buy the core rulebooks when they get out and try to play the game.

Sure, it's really to early to tell if the rules really are better/worse than 4e, 3.5 or AD&D, but it's D&D and I'll play it. You got to support the hobby, right? :smallsmile:

Anderlith
2013-06-06, 02:23 AM
If I could have it my way, everyone picks a class that is very bare bones, just a list of features, no hd, no proficiencies, no skills. Some classes are bigger than others. Something like a Magic User would be 20 levels while Scout would be around 10, a Barbarian would be 12 etc.
The rest is point buy.

The reason for this is I find it more interesting to make Class Features more interchangable. Say group Trapfinding & Uncanny dodge/Evasion into the Rogue Class. Sneak Attack would be the "Assassin" class. Rage Features would be the "Barbarian". Metamagic would be the "Wizard" class. etc. You can choose say two "classes" & that's what you are.

You could be a sneak attacking Magic User. A barbarian with Trapfinding & evasion.

If you reduce everything into smaller lists then it becomes more easy to balance.

Turalisj
2013-06-06, 02:43 AM
So... a generic, points system, like GURPs, HERO, FUDGE, MnM3e... etc.

SiuiS
2013-06-06, 02:46 AM
So... a generic, points system, like GURPs, HERO, FUDGE, MnM3e... etc.

Yep.


A question; does the ToS agreement for being part of the playtest preclude PbP games? I can't for the life of me remember where that came up at, and so can't check.

Turalisj
2013-06-06, 02:59 AM
Play-by-post and play-by-chat games are allowed iirc. I've tried playing in a pbp game with it before but the changing rules makes that hard.

archaeo
2013-06-07, 06:58 PM
However going by what they have to say, and the contents of their tests its not looking great. Their vision seems to be sorely lacking and they just can't seem to say the right thing. The 'unite the playerbase under our edition,' thing isn't a vision. Its a marketing goal. We've lost market share to competing editions. We want all the market share. Its laughable.

I mean, how can you really hate a company for wanting to increase the number of players invested in their game?

That said, I don't think "unite the playerbase under our edition" is the real takeaway from their stated goals. It's much closer to "Let's make an edition that serves as a base for players who want to 'emulate' previous editions." Obviously, it's unclear how well they're succeeding at this. But It's not just a crass marketing goal; it's very clear that it's at the center of their design methodology, though, again, I'm not sure how well they're succeeding.

If they actually pull that off, making it possible to use D&D Next as the chassis for whatever kind of D&D-esque playstyle you want to use, it would be incredibly powerful, allowing the company to make it really easy to use materials from the entire history of the game. I fail to see how that doesn't work as a "vision." The vision is D&D. What more do you want from the tentpole that has held up pen-and-paper RPGs for a whole generation of players?


Aye. I understand the implied behind-the-curtain well enough to be optimistic. I think the big trouble is every time they have something cool, they remove it when they release the next packet. I think it's so they can test different things in isolation. Other, less optimistic people think it's because WotC is full of wads.

Which is why, if this entire edition is just a marketing game they're playing, they're failing miserably. It's perfectly clear that the playtest has only inflamed the userbase. They've released materials that have been openly acknowledged as "we think this is a bad idea, we want to know if you guys think so too."

If there's any lesson in all of this, it's that WotC chose a playtesting methodology that actively alienates the very people they need to test the game. They've also been very vocal about what hopes they have for the game without showing the process of attaining those goals very well.

Compare this to, say, Toady's Dwarf Fortress, or Notch's Minecraft. Both of those games have had lengthy "beta" and "alpha" periods, but the difference is that they were built on a single, incredibly fun idea. WotC hasn't done a very good job of making the playtest actually fun to play, and all of the cool features they're teasing don't even seem to be in the pipeline.

So they've screwed up marketing by showing off unsatisfying and uninteresting beta material. What can you do.

(As an aside, this forum is especially anti-D&D Next. Other places on the Internet continue to show a great deal more optimism.)

Craft (Cheese)
2013-06-07, 07:50 PM
Dungeons and Dragon 1(piece). With an anime made by 4kids and a trading card game produced by Hasbro. Elves will all looks like supermodels, orcs will look like something from World of Warcraft, and haflings will sing educational songs.

Dragonlance?

Turalisj
2013-06-07, 08:10 PM
Dragonlance?

When did Dragonlance have an anime?

Anderlith
2013-06-07, 08:15 PM
When did Dragonlance have an anime?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFAN8vfdIXbQR3cVFFNsU3K-B46vfLc2k4Q4K7ApIADGOouUAnQA

& yes it was terrible

russdm
2013-06-07, 08:41 PM
I thought it was actually semi-decent, but then the combined 3d/non3d animation looked pretty bad. They should have just made the draconians the same as the other characters instead of 3d and done the same with the dragons. It would have looked alot better.

The voice acting ranged from serious to overtly hammy.

Rhynn
2013-06-07, 08:51 PM
I thought it was actually semi-decent, but then the combined 3d/non3d animation looked pretty bad. They should have just made the draconians the same as the other characters instead of 3d and done the same with the dragons. It would have looked alot better.

By any measure, the 2D animation was crude and half-assed: inconsistent, full of poor perspective, clumsy, and just awful, complete with disappearing body-parts and other elements. The character designs even managed to screw up the pretty iconic originals.

It just looks horrible. (http://vnmedia.ign.com/nwvault.ign.com//images/DL_%20Still_%201.JPG)

The gratuitous bad CGI was just icing on a crap cake.

:smallyuk:

russdm
2013-06-07, 09:02 PM
So will D&D next turn into the Dragonlance movie?

Craft (Cheese)
2013-06-07, 09:26 PM
So will D&D next turn into the Dragonlance movie?

I certainly hope so!

Anderlith
2013-06-07, 10:35 PM
Ugh & the three nostriled goblins. All because a little bit of art in the MM has some dark shadowing blech :(

SiuiS
2013-06-08, 01:24 AM
When did Dragonlance have an anime?

I pray no one answers this.


https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFAN8vfdIXbQR3cVFFNsU3K-B46vfLc2k4Q4K7ApIADGOouUAnQA

& yes it was terrible

Gods damn it.


By any measure, the 2D animation was crude and half-assed: inconsistent, full of poor perspective, clumsy, and just awful, complete with disappearing body-parts and other elements. The character designs even managed to screw up the pretty iconic originals.

It just looks horrible. (http://vnmedia.ign.com/nwvault.ign.com//images/DL_%20Still_%201.JPG)

The gratuitous bad CGI was just icing on a crap cake.

:smallyuk:

... Is that Skwisgar Skwigeelf as Raistlin Majere?

Rhynn
2013-06-08, 01:38 AM
... Is that Skwisgar Skwigeelf as Raistlin Majere?

I wish! No, it's Jack BauerKiefer Sutherland.

SiuiS
2013-06-08, 05:05 AM
I wish! No, it's Jack BauerKiefer Sutherland.

Hmmm...


http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/0bhAOx3aGFg/hqdefault.jpg
http://vnmedia.ign.com/nwvault.ign.com//images/DL_%20Still_%201.JPG
http://imstars.aufeminin.com/stars/fan/kiefer-sutherland/kiefer-sutherland-20051113-83977.jpg


I'm not seeing it.

russdm
2013-06-10, 07:20 PM
Kiefer Sutherland did the voice of Raistlin with Xena Warrior Princess being the voice of Goldmoon. I am not sure who they used as the appearence for raistlin.

Frankly, You shouldn't blame Kiefer or Xena for the fact the designers didn't make a good animated show or wrote a bad script.

Seriously, watch the films with Rincewind (Color of magic, a two-part film), its alot better than the dragonlance film. There are more better films out there.

Until D&D Next is officially released and published, i am personally going to hold off making any decisions.

Scow2
2013-06-10, 08:29 PM
I thought it sounded like a great idea. I still like the basic concept - that scaling is primarily from hit points, damage, and abilities. But hit points aren't scaling enough, damage is outpacing hit points so far it's wasted, and abilities are ... well, really abilities aren't, and that's the problem.
How is damage outpacing HP? You get +1d8+1 damage per round every five levels if you're a frontline fighter-type, but gain 1d8/12+2/5 HP every single level. A level 5 fighter can reliably kill a level 1 monster in one stroke. But it takes at least 5 strokes for a level 1 monster to kill a level 5 character. In one-on-one battles, the higher-level character is almost always going to win - it requires ganging up to defeat a stronger foe.

SiuiS
2013-06-11, 09:31 AM
How is damage outpacing HP? You get +1d8+1 damage per round every five levels if you're a frontline fighter-type, but gain 1d8/12+2/5 HP every single level. A level 5 fighter can reliably kill a level 1 monster in one stroke. But it takes at least 5 strokes for a level 1 monster to kill a level 5 character. In one-on-one battles, the higher-level character is almost always going to win - it requires ganging up to defeat a stronger foe.

This has been discussed in, and would probably be better in, the other thread. One topic, one thread, and all that.