D&D Next from a 3.5 view

[Sploggle1]

I have been looking back and fourth between the old playtests of next and the more recent ones and I have seen improvements. It looks eh kinda better then 4 but still doesn't top 3.5.
Experience:
I liked the increase in XP to 2000. I was worried when I saw the old playtest when it was only 650xp (all the goblin killing for xp lol)

I also liked their being no CR system like the older systems.

Skill rolls:

I was iffy about the perception since I personally like if i see or hear an enemy.

I already see issues with monster Xp seeing the goblin having 100xp. Even with the dirty tactic d6 bump i see it to high. I will still go by 2e on the experience on monsters seeing that.

Classes:

On the fighter I noticed they don't get feats anymore which rids the versatile fighter a lot of people like in 3.0 and 3.5.

On the rogue I noticed they added a D6 of sneak attack for every level which I found unnecessary. Even though health now stacks I don't see the need to find other uses for caster die. They could simply keep it at the every other level but raise it to a D8.

On the cleric I like how they actually give it a little more of a bump instead of turn or rebuke undead although they are mainly known for their spiritual power.


(This is an incomplete list since I haven't fully gone through next but only skimmed. I was curious to see what other people thought of it so add if you want)

[Vrock_Summoner]

Well, be careful how you phrase your post. There are plenty of people who think 4e is better than 3.5, so let's not start any wars by implying one is preferred.

That said, I think Next is starting to approach a happy medium between the extensive versatility and high fantasy-ness of 3.5e and the regimented balance of 4e. However, I think the level stacking stuff means power will scale too quickly. There shouldn't, in my opinion, be such a large discrepancy between single levels to maintain verisimilitude.

I'm also critical of the experience system. I think it feels too videogamey, and really, a character SHOULD stop gaining experience from killing something if it's so much weaker than the character that killing them is easy as or easier than target practice. The CR system was never regarded as well-executed, but it's a very good idea.

[Brookshw]

I haven't seen the playtest but the xp sounds like were reverting to pre 3.0 which worked fine, however the xp to level was on magnitudes higher than post 3.0. Did they balance it on that side?

[Ansem]

Well, be careful how you phrase your post. There are plenty of people who think 4e is better than 3.5

I giggled, sorry

[obryn]

I giggled, sorry
I think 4e's simply a better game, and much better suited to my table, but I have no idea why I should have taken offense at the OP, since it was just stating his perspective for his analysis. It's no more offensive than what I just said in this paragraph.

Now your post, on the other hand... :smallsigh:

[Vrock_Summoner]

I think 4e's simply a better game, and much better suited to my table, but I have no idea why I should have taken offense at the OP, since it was just stating his perspective for his analysis. It's no more offensive than what I just said in this paragraph.

Now your post, on the other hand... :smallsigh:

I didn't mean everyone would get offended. Just that in my experience a few people on these boards would get defensive about something that just straight up says "____ is better than 4e but worse than 3.5". Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but we're on the internet; you can't expect everyone to be reasonable.

To clarify, when you said "now your post :smallsigh:" was that referring to me or the person who said they giggled? If it was me, please do inform me of how I've spoken out of line so I can correct it in the future.

[NotAnAardvark]

To clarify, when you said "now your post :smallsigh:" was that referring to me or the person who said they giggled? If it was me, please do inform me of how I've spoken out of line so I can correct it in the future.

Usually when people quote a person and then make a comment replying to some other statement it tends to be directed at the person they're quoting.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Usually when people quote a person and then make a comment replying to some other statement it tends to be directed at the person they're quoting.

For some reason I got the impression that he shifted to responding to my implication about halfway through his post and was therefor directing his comment at me. I was probably just overthinking it.

[Sploggle1]

Making this I was simply trying to get other reviews on it and I did say something "slightly against" 4e Since one I heard bad reviews from other players, and two have not played it myself, but that is not the point lol. Some people like 4e and some people hate 4e.

To the experience question like 3.5 it is progressively even between the classes: level 2: 2000
Level 3: 6000 and so on and so fourth.
(On being balanced I think it is better because it is harder to level, but on 2e I liked how the classes progressed differently but I kept it at 3.5 on the progression. I only tweaked the monster experience)

All in all they are going to charge 49.99 to 59.99 for the players handbook (I payed 15 (29.99 new back in the day) for my 3.5 one lol)... but I wasn't sure if this conversion would be fully worth it. That is what this post was trying to figure out.

[neonchameleon]

Ignore the XP speed in D&D Next. If WotC had any sense at all (debatable) the XP rate in the playtest would be accelerated to give faster feedback.

[squiggit]

I'm really hoping that 50 bucks is for a core rulebook, not a player's guide.

If they expect 50 bucks for a PHB and then again for a DMG and then again for a MM just to start playing? Euch.

[Mando Knight]

I also liked their being no CR system like the older systems.
XP values are the CR system. For the October packet, see page 17 of the DM guidelines to see how they work for encounter balance.

On the fighter I noticed they don't get feats anymore which rids the versatile fighter a lot of people like in 3.0 and 3.5.
The fighter gets class features this time around instead of dead levels and poorly-scaling feats. Relative to their respective encounters, the D&D Next Fighter is in general more resilient, capable, and versatile than the 3.5 Fighter.

Making this I was simply trying to get other reviews on it and I did say something "slightly against" 4e Since one I heard bad reviews from other players, and two have not played it myself, but that is not the point lol. Some people like 4e and some people hate 4e.
Don't judge the value of a system you haven't played by the fact that some people give it bad reviews, generally for it not being 3.5. It's not a system that's right for every game (neither is 3.5), but it should be judged on its merits rather than the appearance of being dissimilar to another system.

All in all they are going to charge 49.99 to 59.99 for the players handbook (I payed 15 (29.99 new back in the day) for my 3.5 one lol)... but I wasn't sure if this conversion would be fully worth it. That is what this post was trying to figure out.
It'll apparently be $50 MSRP, according to a leaked pre-order thanks to Barnes & Noble, but even there it was marked down to $37.96, roughly on par with the 4e PHB at release. And it's quite possible that they'll sell a PDF version for much less.

[Sploggle1]

I should counter the XP on being the Challange Rating. Yes in some way it is but it is far from the CR chart in 3.0 and 3.5. This is a way like the older Dnd games that you can make a challenge for your players without the help of a chart which like I said i don't use I reverted to the 2.0 mm.

I agree that the 3.0 and 3.5 fighter could be scaly if the player didn't know what they wanted in their fighter but as i said versatility is dead. You can only be one of a handful of different types of fighters in next.

Other than those two I agree with what was said.

[Urpriest]

I should counter the XP on being the Challange Rating. Yes in some way it is but it is far from the CR chart in 3.0 and 3.5. This is a way like the older Dnd games that you can make a challenge for your players without the help of a chart which like I said i don't use I reverted to the 2.0 mm.

I agree that the 3.0 and 3.5 fighter could be scaly if the player didn't know what they wanted in their fighter but as i said versatility is dead. You can only be one of a handful of different types of fighters in next.

Other than those two I agree with what was said.

I'm assuming there are XP budgets like 4e? If so, you're still using a chart.

Presumably the "complex Fighter" will have a long, Wizard-esque list of maneuvers, since 5e is supposed to have more complex and more simple variants.

[Scots Dragon]

Even if D&D Next itself doesn't supplant 3.5e in the view of those who like it, it should be easy enough to convert various bits and pieces of material back so that you can use it with the older system that you tend to prefer using.

That's how I handle D&D 3.5e at any rate.

[archaeo]

For what it's worth, Mearls just discussed how the DMG will handle the leveling up discussion (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140217). I'm not sure how this fits in with CR or whatever system they'll use for matching up a party with a suitable encounter, but for many adventures, D&D Next seems like it'll be pretty blasé.

Given the whole "concepts not numbers" aspect of the playtests, it wouldn't be too surprising if they had wonky XP curves. Let's hope that the designers gave this more attention in the post-playtest phase.

[Joe the Rat]

On XP and CR:

There are a couple of different ideas here for why goblins are still worth killing at 15th level, at least from the design perspective. How well it actually implements - if their assumptions and math hold up - is a continuing issue.

1) Exponential headcount, CR and growing XP requirements: One way you could make goblins worthwhile at higher levels is to have a metric crapton of them. If you can 'defeat' an army, it's worth your time. If the XP requirements for each level increases rapidly enough, then you will still need to deal with armies of goblins to make it worth your time... but you can still do a per head count. Note that for the old CR, this would probably require better-than-geometric XP progression.

2) Bounded Accuracy and AC: The 5e model assumes your character's AC will rarely hit 20. This means there's a better chance of said massed goblins - or even for a single goblin - to drain your HP more often than 1/20 tries. Likewise, with fewer attack bonuses, you may find yourself missing with more than a 1 (you might miss one a 2 as well). Combined with fewer sources of damage mitigation (the last playtest packet had ONE DR-like effect available to players, and that required a Feat and heavy armor), that should keep goblins (and every other mook monster) relevant threats (not just a temporary 5'x5' obstacles). So the "challenge" of these creatures should not fall off as rapidly compared to 3.5, and as such is worth xp.

Again, these are rationales behind a flat per-beastie XP. How well a gaggle of gobbos stacks up to a single XP-equivalent Big Monster should say a lot about how well this works - or where numbers need adjusting.


Presumably the "complex Fighter" will have a long, Wizard-esque list of maneuvers, since 5e is supposed to have more complex and more simple variants.Ah, I think you want the "spellcasting fighter" subclass they keep referring to.

I think this is the direction of the "Weapon Master" fighter, though it is sorely lacking in maneuver options (and effectiveness). Add Defense fighter style, Tactical Feat, a weapon style Feat... yeah, you can push a lot into Fighter to start getting options in the playtest material, but there's a ways to go before you even hit Warlock levels of complexity. I expect they'd build off of the SD mechanic for fighters to start getting 'depth'.

[Juhn]

I'm really hoping that 50 bucks is for a core rulebook, not a player's guide.

If they expect 50 bucks for a PHB and then again for a DMG and then again for a MM just to start playing? Euch.That's what I paid for my box set (by which I mean flimsy carboard sleeve containing the three books) for my 3.5e PHB/DMG/MM back in the day.

Of course at that time I had no idea that $150 was a completely insane price to have to pay to start playing a tabletop RPG.

[Lokiare]

For what it's worth, Mearls just discussed how the DMG will handle the leveling up discussion (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140217). I'm not sure how this fits in with CR or whatever system they'll use for matching up a party with a suitable encounter, but for many adventures, D&D Next seems like it'll be pretty blasé.

Given the whole "concepts not numbers" aspect of the playtests, it wouldn't be too surprising if they had wonky XP curves. Let's hope that the designers gave this more attention in the post-playtest phase.

The developers seemed to have the mistaken impression that the numbers don't affect the feel.

When anyone can tell you that a Fighter with a 1d4 great sword that only hits 12% of the time and doesn't get any other bonuses fighting along side a Wizard that casts 6d6 fireballs and lightning bolts pretty much at-will is going to have a much different feel than a Fighter with a 1d12 great sword that hits 60% of the time and crits for x5 damage 5% of the time and allows them to add their Str, Con, and Dex mods to the attack roll and damage and getting 6x attacks per round fighting alongside a Wizard that gets 2-3 3d6 Fireballs or Lightning bolts and 1d4 damage cantrips they can cast every round that hit 50% of the time and don't crit at all.

I would cite their methods more than what they produced as reasons I'll likely not play 5E, although what they produced if it were handed to me without reading a single thing about it before hand would still give me enough reasons to avoid playing 5E over other systems that its a moot point.

- - - Updated - - -


On XP and CR:

There are a couple of different ideas here for why goblins are still worth killing at 15th level, at least from the design perspective. How well it actually implements - if their assumptions and math hold up - is a continuing issue.

1) Exponential headcount, CR and growing XP requirements: One way you could make goblins worthwhile at higher levels is to have a metric crapton of them. If you can 'defeat' an army, it's worth your time. If the XP requirements for each level increases rapidly enough, then you will still need to deal with armies of goblins to make it worth your time... but you can still do a per head count. Note that for the old CR, this would probably require better-than-geometric XP progression.

2) Bounded Accuracy and AC: The 5e model assumes your character's AC will rarely hit 20. This means there's a better chance of said massed goblins - or even for a single goblin - to drain your HP more often than 1/20 tries. Likewise, with fewer attack bonuses, you may find yourself missing with more than a 1 (you might miss one a 2 as well). Combined with fewer sources of damage mitigation (the last playtest packet had ONE DR-like effect available to players, and that required a Feat and heavy armor), that should keep goblins (and every other mook monster) relevant threats (not just a temporary 5'x5' obstacles). So the "challenge" of these creatures should not fall off as rapidly compared to 3.5, and as such is worth xp.

Again, these are rationales behind a flat per-beastie XP. How well a gaggle of gobbos stacks up to a single XP-equivalent Big Monster should say a lot about how well this works - or where numbers need adjusting.

Ah, I think you want the "spellcasting fighter" subclass they keep referring to.

I think this is the direction of the "Weapon Master" fighter, though it is sorely lacking in maneuver options (and effectiveness). Add Defense fighter style, Tactical Feat, a weapon style Feat... yeah, you can push a lot into Fighter to start getting options in the playtest material, but there's a ways to go before you even hit Warlock levels of complexity. I expect they'd build off of the SD mechanic for fighters to start getting 'depth'.

Mathematically the danger of fighting low level creatures goes up exponentially as you increase the number of creatures. If you fight 6 goblins and you are able to defeat 2 per round you end up taking between 6 and 12 attacks. If you fight 24 goblins and you can defeat 2 per round you end up taking between 132 and 134 attacks, making them exponentially more dangerous even at higher levels, unless your hp scales faster than their expected damage from round to round. Since HP doesn't scale exponentially and AC stays the same, we know the danger goes up exponentially.

This is one of the many factors the developers fail to calculate in. If they did, they would explain that the xp value of multiples of monsters should go up exponentially as you add more monsters, but they don't.

[Knaight]

It'll apparently be $50 MSRP, according to a leaked pre-order thanks to Barnes & Noble, but even there it was marked down to $37.96, roughly on par with the 4e PHB at release. And it's quite possible that they'll sell a PDF version for much less.

This is still pretty unreasonable. 3 core books is quite a bit - HERO and GURPS only have two, and both of those games are at least as complicated as any edition of D&D, and RPG prices outside of the few large companies tend to be getting lower, though a lot of that is just the use of paperbacks.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I really hate the XP system in D&D and I will be tossing it out with the trash if it is anything like previous editions.

All it is ... Is another numbers bloat to make people feel like they have a lot of something when they really don't.

Troublesome.

[Friv]

Mathematically the danger of fighting low level creatures goes up exponentially as you increase the number of creatures. If you fight 6 goblins and you are able to defeat 2 per round you end up taking between 6 and 12 attacks. If you fight 24 goblins and you can defeat 2 per round you end up taking between 132 and 134 attacks, making them exponentially more dangerous even at higher levels, unless your hp scales faster than their expected damage from round to round. Since HP doesn't scale exponentially and AC stays the same, we know the danger goes up exponentially.

That depends on a lot of complex factors, though. If only 6 of the goblins can surround you at a time, and you have the ability to kill two per round before they attack, you're only taking 42 attacks from 24 goblins, compared to 6 attacks from 6 goblins; it scales, but not exponentially. If you have a powerful area attack of some kind, 24 goblins may actually be exactly as dangerous as 6, because they'll get one hit in and then you'll obliterate every goblin close to you, after which you can wipe them out in sets before they can close to make a single attack.

Essentially, it's always been true that large numbers of enemies break encounter budgets. 3.x had a discusison about it. I think 4e did as well, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That depends on a lot of complex factors, though. If only 6 of the goblins can surround you at a time, and you have the ability to kill two per round before they attack, you're only taking 42 attacks from 24 goblins, compared to 6 attacks from 6 goblins; it scales, but not exponentially. If you have a powerful area attack of some kind, 24 goblins may actually be exactly as dangerous as 6, because they'll get one hit in and then you'll obliterate every goblin close to you, after which you can wipe them out in sets before they can close to make a single attack.

Essentially, it's always been true that large numbers of enemies break encounter budgets. 3.x had a discusison about it. I think 4e did as well, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

4e made it very interesting with minions. All the strength of a certain level but with 1 HP.

Using them with proper tactics is so much fun >:D

[Lokiare]

4e made it very interesting with minions. All the strength of a certain level but with 1 HP.

Using them with proper tactics is so much fun >:D

I especially liked the ones that when they died, they exploded or became burst 1 zones (3x3 squares) of various negative effects, or grabbed a hold of a character and dealt damage until they managed to make a saving throw to remove them. That was innovation. We aren't seeing anything like that in 5E.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I especially liked the ones that when they died, they exploded or became burst 1 zones (3x3 squares) of various negative effects, or grabbed a hold of a character and dealt damage until they managed to make a saving throw to remove them. That was innovation. We aren't seeing anything like that in 5E.

Back in 2e/3e days I used the concepts of minions (1 HP but same as a nomrla monster) to represent the different Final Fantasy Bombs (hit them and they explode).

When 4e brought in minions I was all like "yesss no more home brewing everything" haha.

I think the concept of minions can be translated over to 5e. It is a really good way to keep combat at the 3-5 round while still giving the players a chance of getting hurt. You can easily throw in more combats per day (say if you are behind enemy lines or something and keep running into small groups) without taking a long time.

If an enemy HP is 8 and you deal 1d8 + 3 damage it can still take up to 2 rounds (if you don't miss) to kill off that creature by hacking a slashing it to death... Or with a minion the party could just slice right through.

Now... Not all creatures should be 1hp but they certainly help.

I'm running a playtest this weekend. Does anyone have any suggestions for minions?

[Lokiare]

Back in 2e/3e days I used the concepts of minions (1 HP but same as a nomrla monster) to represent the different Final Fantasy Bombs (hit them and they explode).

When 4e brought in minions I was all like "yesss no more home brewing everything" haha.

I think the concept of minions can be translated over to 5e. It is a really good way to keep combat at the 3-5 round while still giving the players a chance of getting hurt. You can easily throw in more combats per day (say if you are behind enemy lines or something and keep running into small groups) without taking a long time.

If an enemy HP is 8 and you deal 1d8 + 3 damage it can still take up to 2 rounds (if you don't miss) to kill off that creature by hacking a slashing it to death... Or with a minion the party could just slice right through.

Now... Not all creatures should be 1hp but they certainly help.

I'm running a playtest this weekend. Does anyone have any suggestions for minions?

Yeah, if they are goblins, give them "goo packs" when hit they explode causing any creature within 10' radius to be immobilized (use your action to make a strength save vs. DC 12 to escape).

If they are kobolds give them "oil packs" when hit oil leaks out in a 10' radius causing anyone to enter or move through the area to make a DC 10 dexterity save or fall prone, losing the rest of their movement that round. If the attack was a fire based attack, instead anyone in the area takes 2d6 fire damage.

If you have a plant based minion you can do the 10' radius poison cloud, that either deals damage or causes a condition.

[Sploggle1]

In my game I keep it simple for lower level characters. I would throw a pack of goblins at them around 6 or so since their so low hp, and maybe two wolves or so just to give them a challenge. Gnolls are fun to throw at people as well. I would say go by their characte levels. If they are low throw the small stuff at them. If they were higher throw the fun stuff at them.

[Sploggle1]

Like i said I run the 2e monster experience as well.

I don't know what 5e is going for since the playtests waver so much but I am hoping they keep it at 2000 xp for level 2. 1000 was to simple in 3.0 and 3.5 but I fixed it using the 2e xp values. I definitely don't think goblins are worth 100xp as they were in the 5e playtest I got a hold of I think they are only worth 15 at the most. With the dirty tactics bump they gave them in 5e maybe 25 pushing it.

[Lokiare]

Like i said I run the 2e monster experience as well.

I don't know what 5e is going for since the playtests waver so much but I am hoping they keep it at 2000 xp for level 2. 1000 was to simple in 3.0 and 3.5 but I fixed it using the 2e xp values. I definitely don't think goblins are worth 100xp as they were in the 5e playtest I got a hold of I think they are only worth 15 at the most. With the dirty tactics bump they gave them in 5e maybe 25 pushing it.

With the first 2 levels being skippable they dropped the XP to a few hundred each. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Sploggle1]

You sure that's not an older playtest because mine says 2000, 4000, and then 6000. mine was 2013. I think the one with the hundreds is 2012.

If they do end up keeping it in the hundreds I may completely null buying it, or if features are better than 3.5 completely facter out Xp and go by 3.5 or 2e's xp.

[BeardlessTreant]

I'll start off saying that I like low-level campaigns, whether I'm DM or not.

The nature of experience gain, in my opinion, is a system that no one should follow when using packs of level 1 monsters versus higher level monsters. It will always require some form of homebrew, whether it be on the monster end or the "level up" end of the game.

In my version of the playtest, while the exp req. for level 2 is a measly 250 exp, a standard level one encounter will gain a PC 10 experience. That's a nice number 25 encounters, not the standard 10 encounters in 4e. So once again 5e is seemingly middle ground between 4e and 3.0/5e.

I found the "Goblin Curve Problem" to be interesting. I did the math and played into some specific assumptions. The first being that we are talking about goblins per PC. and I used two linear eq. to represent the number of Goblins in the battle at the beginning of the turn, and the number of hits the PC will experience. I also assumed that the each creature (Goblins and PC) always hit on attack (ignoring reach issues), and that the PCs attacks were an instant kill and that the Goblins' attacks did no damage. This was so that we could find the minimum number of hits, and turns req., for the battle from the Goblins' perspective. Even if you guys didn't realize it, you were doing the same. As a note, since the begging of one turn is simultaneously the beginning of the next turn, it is important to refer to the beginning and end of a turn to be completely different points in time, and who (the Goblins or PCs are attacking first) It is also required to assume that the Goblins all attack in one clump of simultaneous actions.

First) The number of Goblins (G) at the beginning of the turn is based on the Principle or original number of Goblins (P) and the rate of attacks a PC can make per turn (rpc) times the number of turns passed (t). Hence, G = P - rpc*t

Second) the number of hits per turn (H) against the PC is the multiplication of the rate of monsters hitting (rg) times the number of Goblins currently alive (G). Hence, H = G*rg.

t is mainly used as an index. saying that at this t its this X,Y or Z.

There were four cases that grabbed my attention: where P =6,24,25, and the special case of 8.

To find the total number of hits you use substitution for G and get the equation for H to be: H=(P - rpc*t)*rg = P*rg-rpc*t*rg
But since the model is not continuous, (there is no such thing as 4.2982 Goblins) we will divide the number of hits into two classes. The PC hits First, and the Goblins hit first. I will use the numbers previously stated for as many variables as possible. The goblins will each attack only 1 time per round, the PC will attack only 2 times each round. If the PC attacks first he/she will be hit less times then if the Goblins attacked first, so we will take the Right Reimann sum of the line H if the PC attacked first and the Left Reimann Sum if the Monster attacked first.

Each Case:Just trust my math

P=6:
PC First: H = 6
G First: H = 12

P=24:
PC First: H = 132
G First: H = 156

P=25:
PC First: H = 144
G First: H = 169

P=8:
PC First: H = 6
G First: H = 12

So for a more logistically oriented situation: Goblins have a reach of 5 ft so depending on whether you are playing on a hex mat or a square mat, a PC can only be hit for a maximum of 6 or 8 hits a round, respectively. So instead a PC will be hit between 123 to 129 times on a hex mat, and 144 to 152 where P = 25. (if P = 24, I believe it to be only one less than 24, since there will be only that 1 possible to hit you at the end of the combat.

This may not be completely useful, but in order to gain one level solely in combat with only goblins in 5e, a PC will have had to have been hit somewhere around 144 to 152 times in a plausible worst cause scenario. We know Goblins hit for 2 hit points on average (but it's actually 2.6666666666667) for an attack, we know that with the fact that the starting person will only have around 10 hp on average at starting level. So the average PC will have had to have taken 288 - 304 points of damage. dividing by 10, we find that a person will have had expended almost 29 to 30 "lives'" worth of Hp to gain a level. That sounds perfectly to my tastes. Also, the group of 24 Goblins is the moderate experience gain per encounter for a level 5 person. in other words a level 5 character would have to kill on average 475 goblins in total over 20 encounters accumulating as much as 900 points of damage, or 30 "lives'" worth of Hp to reach level 6.

[Lokiare]

You sure that's not an older playtest because mine says 2000, 4000, and then 6000. mine was 2013. I think the one with the hundreds is 2012.

If they do end up keeping it in the hundreds I may completely null buying it, or if features are better than 3.5 completely facter out Xp and go by 3.5 or 2e's xp.

I'm not sure if its in a play test, but they mentioned it in one of their recent articles on the 'apprentice' levels.

Here is an article where they talk about it: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140113

"In addition, the game's level progression assumes that 1st and 2nd level each take about one game session. That gives anyone enough time to master the basics of a class before diving into making significant character choices. For new players especially, those first game sessions can provide an understanding of the character and the campaign that creates a strong foundation for choices. For groups that like the experience of playing at 1st and 2nd level, DMs can use an optional experience progression that allows for more play at those levels. On the other hand, for experienced players who want more options for character creation than 1st-level backgrounds, the game includes rules for creating experienced 3rd-level characters right from the start."

So it doesn't call out an exact xp value, but leveling in 1 session for 2 levels means it can't really be that much xp.

Of course my cynicism wants me to add a comment about losing 10 levels off the top and then another 2 levels off the bottom, but I won't because people seem to get annoyed at things like that...er...wait...

[Knaight]

If they do end up keeping it in the hundreds I may completely null buying it, or if features are better than 3.5 completely facter out Xp and go by 3.5 or 2e's xp.

Lowering experience to get more play testing at higher levels is one of the few things that actually makes a great deal of sense as a deviation from the game as it is actually intended to be (as opposed to some of the bizarre testing regarding whether abilities are sufficiently iconic). I wouldn't trust the numbers as representative of anything.

Plus, they're so easy to change that they seem like an odd decision to base purchase on.

[Sploggle1]

It's not really all I am basing my decision on. I am also looking at the mechanics which seem just okay. Their are a few things I would like them to tweak like for instance the rogue now getting sneak attack every level (Not necessary). Even though they are upping hp they could do a D8 every other level lowering the required amount of dice while not over powering sneak attack. The fighter I would like to see feats come back instead of paths. Finally the monk which has been improved a little comparing it to the over powered 3.5 version (also dumbed down from the 3.0 version). I like how they can no longer get unlimited slow fall, and I like how they get ki points that they can use to their whim.

The only reason I keep bringing up Xp is because in my mind I laugh at the fact that they are going so far with instant gratification. That was my only complaint on Xp.

[obryn]

The only reason I keep bringing up Xp is because in my mind I laugh at the fact that they are going so far with instant gratification. That was my only complaint on Xp.
I'm almost 40 with a family and a house and a dog and a cat and a career.

I want a little "instant" in my gratification when it comes to gaming.

[Sploggle1]

Lol look at the ba in here. I doubt half of that is true. Keep your un dnd related fantasy out of thesr forums.
Those are my opinions and if you dont like them oh well lol.

[Sploggle1]

and maybe if you do have a Kid you shouldn't even be playing games maybe you should be paying more attention to your kid, or you know play some 4e with him or her.

[Daremonai]

Finally the monk which has been improved a little comparing it to the over powered 3.5 version (also dumbed down from the 3.0 version).

Wait, what? The 3.5 Monk was a messy jumble of class features that had zero synergy (pairing fast move with features that require Full Round Actions) or were just plain underpowered (flurry of misses). I haven't looked at the new monk yet, but the 3.5 monk was not overpowered.

I am interested to see how well casters multiclass in this version though - in 3.5 a caster splash or losing more than a few Caster Levels meant you may as well not bother, but from what I've read that may be less of an issue here...

[Sploggle1]

maybe I misspoke when I use the word overpowered. I agree with the synergy and the flurry of blows missing a lot. the main thing I was against is what I stated which was infinite slow fall.

I did not look too much into casters but it looks like they did do some tweaks on them.

[obryn]

Lol look at the ba in here. I doubt half of that is true. Keep your un dnd related fantasy out of thesr forums.
Those are my opinions and if you dont like them oh well lol.

and maybe if you do have a Kid you shouldn't even be playing games maybe you should be paying more attention to your kid, or you know play some 4e with him or her.
You have got to be kidding me.

[Sebastrd]

You have got to be kidding me.

Just report it and move on. :smallwink:

[Stubbazubba]

Yeah, that was so stupid I was embarrassed for him.