D&D Next

[Callie Del Noire]

Anyone seen the playtest packets yet? I'm curious to hear what others have had to say about what they have seen in it.

To date I've seen a few characters and it's got a 'modular' feel to it but not the 'at action'/'once a combat'/once a day actions of 4e.

[Inkidu]

I'm interested, but I'm also very set in my ways with 3.5, what can I say. I fear change. :P

Plus, 3.5 books are available in PDF form. :\

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm interested, but I'm also very set in my ways with 3.5, what can I say. I fear change. :P

Plus, 3.5 books are available in PDF form. :\

Legally?

[Silverfyre]

DriveThruRPG.com for all your "legal" 3.5 .pdf needs.

I have a friend who is part of the playtest and we looked over the material last week.  They are in a very early stage of development with it but it really looks like a bastardized version of 3.5 smashed together with 4th edition.  They use the same attributes, stripped out alignment ... as well as skills.  There are no skills, just the attributes and attacks and saves.  It is a very odd system at the moment and we are planning on playtesting it this upcoming weekend.  Otherwise, I am not impressed so far but it is only the earliest release of a new system.  I can't expect miracles, right?

[TheGlyphstone]

Rogues apparently have the ability to retroactively take 10 on skill checks if they roll less than 10 on the attempt, so there must be skills of some kind.

[Silverfyre]

They do have the modifiers but no actual skill rules from what I saw. Again, early, early version and all.  They mostly want to test the combat system at the moment.

[Chris Brady]

Legally?

There's also the D20SRD which according to their own OGL is legal.  It's at http://www.d20srd.org/

On topic, I have the playtest package, looking through it, after I load it on my iPad.  Can't read PDFs on a computer screen.  Specially widescreen.

[Cold Heritage]

Fighters get the ability to make two whole attacks per round once per day!

[Callie Del Noire]

Got the download going.. part of the modular feel I'm seeing could be summed up by this section of the character sheet.

Race: Lightfoot Halfling  Class: Rogue  Background: Commoner  Theme:Lurker

So you get the racial and class traits.. then extras such as skills from Background and Feats from Theme. In this case you get Animal Handling, Commerce, Folklore from the background and Ambusher feat from Theme.

[TheGlyphstone]

Fighters get the ability to make two whole attacks per round once per day!

At level 2, that's nothing to sneeze at.

[Cold Heritage]

At level 2, that's nothing to sneeze at.

I grew up on the AD&D2e Weapon Specialization attacks per round, so it's not doing a whole lot for me.

[TentacleFan]

It took a while to get it to download since the servers were overloaded on day 1 but I got mine downloaded. I've had a chance to read it pretty much all over. I can see elements of all the editions at play. I like the emphasis on exploration and trying different solutions to things that hearkens back to earlier pre-4th edition play. I played several 4th ed campaigns but they all felt kind of same-y after awhile. We start our playtest tomorrow night. I'll see about coming back and posting some thoughts once it sees actual play with my group.

[LunarSage]

From what I've been hearing, I think I'll stick with Pathfinder for now.

[Silverfyre]

From what I've been hearing, I think I'll stick with Pathfinder for now.

+1.

[Cold Heritage]

It took a while to get it to download since the servers were overloaded on day 1 but I got mine downloaded. I've had a chance to read it pretty much all over. I can see elements of all the editions at play. I like the emphasis on exploration and trying different solutions to things that hearkens back to earlier pre-4th edition play. I played several 4th ed campaigns but they all felt kind of same-y after awhile. We start our playtest tomorrow night. I'll see about coming back and posting some thoughts once it sees actual play with my group.

It's gonna be okay. 4e's dead and it's never coming back.

[TentacleFan]

It's gonna be okay. 4e's dead and it's never coming back.

;) I see what they were trying to do with 4th Ed. Make the game balanced at various levels for various classes. That lead to making the game monotonous and for lack of a better word same-y as I mentioned before. I made the switch fully, even sold off a lot of my 3.5 edition materials, but I'm looking forward to trying this out. If not I just switch back to the many non d&d rpgs I play.

As for D&D Next I'm very interested to see how it plays, but even more so to see more as it comes out. To see what the character creation looks like since right now we just have teases into the process. Also how progression when leveling looks over the course of however many levels this edition includes.

[Callie Del Noire]

From what I've been hearing, I think I'll stick with Pathfinder for now.

Same here but I am curious. I heard they took Monte Cook out of the mix again.

[TentacleFan]

Same here but I am curious. I heard they took Monte Cook out of the mix again.

I didn't find that hard to believe. I enjoy his work and ideas but he seems fairly contentious. I could see him leaving of his own choice or being taken off the project either way.  It would not surprise me if I found out that things like the Vancian spell memorization coming back were his ideas.

[Callie Del Noire]

I didn't find that hard to believe. I enjoy his work and ideas but he seems fairly contentious. I could see him leaving of his own choice or being taken off the project either way.  It would not surprise me if I found out that things like the Vancian spell memorization coming back were his ideas.

It's not entirely the same though. Magic Missile, Shocking grasp are both 'cantrips' now and the vibe is similar but not the same. You got a 'to hit' roll with a lot more spells now. (1d20 + <your magic stat>  and so on).

One of the things I'm ambivalent about is the 'Advantage' roll (and it's evil twin 'Disadvantage'). Say you're facing a big bad knight in heavy metal armor.. you cast Shocking Grasp on him (gaining an advantage) so instead of simply rolling once.. you roll twice and take the best roll. The disadvantage is the same, except you take the worse.

Looking over the Dwarven fighter, yeah..he gets to double his actions 2/day (ie.. 2 attacks instead of one) but Cold Heritage left out the  thing he gets from having the Reaver Theme.. he does damage even when he MISSES (Ability score damage.. ie.. whatever his Str bonus is)

[Jefepato]

I'm planning to take it for a spin with my group, but until I see something resembling a complete set of the rules and options I have trouble drawing any conclusions.  Playing with pregens isn't much of a test from where I'm sitting.

[TentacleFan]

It's not entirely the same though. Magic Missile, Shocking grasp are both 'cantrips' now and the vibe is similar but not the same. You got a 'to hit' roll with a lot more spells now. (1d20 + <your magic stat>  and so on).

One of the things I'm ambivalent about is the 'Advantage' roll (and it's evil twin 'Disadvantage'). Say you're facing a big bad knight in heavy metal armor.. you cast Shocking Grasp on him (gaining an advantage) so instead of simply rolling once.. you roll twice and take the best roll. The disadvantage is the same, except you take the worse.

Looking over the Dwarven fighter, yeah..he gets to double his actions 2/day (ie.. 2 attacks instead of one) but Cold Heritage left out the  thing he gets from having the Reaver Theme.. he does damage even when he MISSES (Ability score damage.. ie.. whatever his Str bonus is)

Yeah I noticed it's not exactly the same, sort of a franken-system for spellcasting. The Advantage/Disadvantage system is probably the thing that strikes me as the biggest difference rules wise. It's being used very liberally to replace the +2/-2 modifiers but it seems more swingy than the small modifiers were. Will see how they playtest tonight.

The reaving thing is pretty  much that power from the 4th ed fighter that did the same thing. Not sure how I feel about that.

I'm planning to take it for a spin with my group, but until I see something resembling a complete set of the rules and options I have trouble drawing any conclusions.  Playing with pregens isn't much of a test from where I'm sitting.

Same here. I am glad to get the chance to playtest it at all but the stated purpose of this playtest was to see how players roleplaying with more of a knack for exploration and trying different solutions instead of the 3rd ed and especially 4th ed linear fight-fight-skill challenge-fight modules. I don't know about everyone else but exploration and creative problem solving were pretty par for the course in my group pre 4th ed. I'm more interested in seeing how the character creation works myself. I do like that there is more emphasis on non combat related activity than 4th ed.

[ofDelusions]

I dislike how they seem to have bought back the special rules and attacks that depend on aligment. Makes houseruling the aligment system away harder.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yeah I noticed it's not exactly the same, sort of a franken-system for spellcasting. The Advantage/Disadvantage system is probably the thing that strikes me as the biggest difference rules wise. It's being used very liberally to replace the +2/-2 modifiers but it seems more swingy than the small modifiers were. Will see how they playtest tonight.

The reaving thing is pretty  much that power from the 4th ed fighter that did the same thing. Not sure how I feel about that.

I'm sort of split on it myself. On one side I think it helps the fighter types that fall behind in higher level fights.

[DarklingAlice]

I really like what I have seen so far and think that there are some nice elements drawn from all around. We are play-testing this Friday and I will have more complete thoughts on it then.

I've always been a fan of the system they use for advantage and disadvantage (we use it as a combat houserule in our OD&D games...dual wielding lets you roll twice and take the higher, attacking an opponent with shielding or cover causes you to roll twice and take the lower, etc.). It's especially nice because it means that advantage and disadvantage are really minor if you are at the extreme ends of skill level, but can turn the tide for those in the middle.

[Cold Heritage]

I didn't find that hard to believe. I enjoy his work and ideas but he seems fairly contentious. I could see him leaving of his own choice or being taken off the project either way.  It would not surprise me if I found out that things like the Vancian spell memorization coming back were his ideas.

Don't sell Mearls short on potential responsibility bringing back the Vance - he's said he likes to think of D&DN as "a good retroclone."

I don't know about everyone else but exploration and creative problem solving were pretty par for the course in my group pre 4th ed.

I played Fighters and in Forgotten Realms before 4e (or even 3.0) came out, so there was no call for the former and no tools for me for the latter.

On one side I think it helps the fighter types that fall behind in higher level fights.

From what I've seen the prevailing attitude is that that is the game working as intended, so there's no reason to change it since one of the fundamental design goals of D&DN is to get back to the game feeling like D&D after 4e.

[TentacleFan]

I'm sort of split on it myself. On one side I think it helps the fighter types that fall behind in higher level fights.

Having seen the reaving in action tonight it made the Dwarf a terror at least to those low level types. He could not fail to kill a Kobold or a Rat on a swing even if he missed.

Don't sell Mearls short on potential responsibility bringing back the Vance - he's said he likes to think of D&DN as "a good retroclone."

That's true as well. Mearls worked with Cook at Malhavoc before I recall.

I played Fighters and in Forgotten Realms before 4e (or even 3.0) came out, so there was no call for the former and no tools for me for the latter.

I've never done much with the realms. I tend to either explore other settings (Greyhawk, Planescape, Dark Sun) or create my own whole cloth. What I mainly meant though was less of a focus on constant fight fight fight which is what a lot of the modules I'd played through for 4th Ed seemed like. And for the creative problem solving I don't just mean things like spells or rules stuff. I mean situations where it's more GM Fiat, which this playtest seems to be embracing. Trying to allow different play styles, something that 4th seemed to frown upon in many ways.

Overall for the first night of playtesting we got through about half of the Kobold section of the caves. The first part of the night was spent going over rules and character sheets. It had been a while since we had played D&D so the fact that everyone enjoyed the experience overall might be partly due to stretching our traditional fantasy legs again after a Shadowrun campaign went on hiatus. It seems easy enough to run so far. Will be interested to see what things look like once more rules roll out.

[Chris Brady]

I grew up on the AD&D2e Weapon Specialization attacks per round, so it's not doing a whole lot for me.

You need to realizing that EVERYONE gets only ONE action per round, now.  That makes a whole lot of difference

On topic:  I see that Wizards has realized that they too can 'steal' from other OGL sources.  The Saving Throws are a near direct rip from Castle and Crusades.  Which I actually approve of.  It means that no stat is really a 'dump stat'.

However, there are a couple of issues that I see.  Namely heavy armour.  You can match the AC if you're wearing the Max Light Armour with a 16 Dex.  It's also about 5 times cheaper to get.  So the best 'tank' fighter is a Mithral Chain wearing Finesse Fighter.  They need to increase the AC of heavy, or allow half-Strength modifier to be added.  Not to mention rebalancing the cost.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I'm kind of eyeballing it, but I stopped seriously keeping up with new editions of D&D after Second. 

I've discovered that Second Edition with some custom mods is really all the "system" needed to engage in an adventure^*. 

I can't fault WotC for trying to stay in business selling new editions and supplements and guidebooks.  But they've got nothing I really need.


* Unless you like a highly tactical game with detailed maps, lead figures, detailed charts with wind resistance and Coriolis force and adjustments for every type of armor in existence, and other myriad calculations to the fifth decimal place to run battles.  In which case it's arguable that D&D itself might not be the best system for you.  But then 3.5 does have an edge over 2. 

[DarklingAlice]

Eh, it's not about the system you "need". In my opinion I have never "needed" a new edition of D&D since this:

Frankly this 'Advanced' business seems like a little too much :P

But that's not the point. New game systems, especially ones with high press and support generate tons of new ideas, artwork, and players. Even for editions with poor mechanics (like 4e in my opinion) they can still be fun to play and at times produce excellent fodder to adapt to your own games (e.g. I love both the fluff and certain mechanics from my 4e Dark Sun Campaign Guide, even though I will never actually run a Dark Sun game in 4e). So there are definite fringe benefits to keeping in touch with the current edition no matter what ed you play.

[Revelation]

I'll don my flame resistant waders and welding goggles and say that as a massive fan of 4e, D&D5e is nothing but a disappointment so far. Now while this is the first public playtest, and nothing is far from complete I am not liking the new system from what i'm seeing and it appears my group feels the same way. Naturally you should game with whatever system you enjoy! And I am sure 5e will have tons of fans who I will be happy to see like the game... But its definitely not an edition thats interesting me at the moment.

[TentacleFan]

I put this in spoilers in case anyone is playing rather than running the playtest. I'm not sure if I need spoilers on an over 30 year old module but hey better to be safe than sorry.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

My other RP group decided they wanted to take a break from Mutants & Masterminds and try out the playtest as well so now I'm running 2 groups through the Caves. They ended up going into the goblin cave first instead of the kobold one. They handled the initial guards well until the Ogre who the goblins paid to come deal with them came in. One of the goblins had surrendered because he was the last one left and was surrounded by a whole party of adventurers. The Ogre comes rumbling down the hall, scaring the party spitless and they look at the goblin to see what's going on. He smiles and whispers, "You're all gonna get it now." At which point the halfling sticks him between the ribs finishing him off. The party then proceeds to roleplay the hell out of things and with some clever conversation, a few good rolls, and some careful bribery they convince the ogre not to beat their brains in with his big ol club. It was some of the most fun I've had roleplaying in some time.

The only issue I'm having is I can tell that both my group and I are going to want to play some more fantasy even after this wraps up. I'm not going back to 4th Ed, no offense to those that like it I hope you continue to enjoy. And I got rid of most of my 3rd Ed/3.5 material some time ago. Since actual D&D Next won't be available I guess I'll either need to turn to my non TSR/WOTC rpgs or I could pick up Pathfinder (I have the Beginner Box but nothing else). Pathfinder is a hard sell to my groups though. There are some who don't want to "go back to 3rd ed" as they see it.

[Callie Del Noire]

I put this in spoilers in case anyone is playing rather than running the playtest. I'm not sure if I need spoilers on an over 30 year old module but hey better to be safe than sorry.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

My other RP group decided they wanted to take a break from Mutants & Masterminds and try out the playtest as well so now I'm running 2 groups through the Caves. They ended up going into the goblin cave first instead of the kobold one. They handled the initial guards well until the Ogre who the goblins paid to come deal with them came in. One of the goblins had surrendered because he was the last one left and was surrounded by a whole party of adventurers. The Ogre comes rumbling down the hall, scaring the party spitless and they look at the goblin to see what's going on. He smiles and whispers, "You're all gonna get it now." At which point the halfling sticks him between the ribs finishing him off. The party then proceeds to roleplay the hell out of things and with some clever conversation, a few good rolls, and some careful bribery they convince the ogre not to beat their brains in with his big ol club. It was some of the most fun I've had roleplaying in some time.

The only issue I'm having is I can tell that both my group and I are going to want to play some more fantasy even after this wraps up. I'm not going back to 4th Ed, no offense to those that like it I hope you continue to enjoy. And I got rid of most of my 3rd Ed/3.5 material some time ago. Since actual D&D Next won't be available I guess I'll either need to turn to my non TSR/WOTC rpgs or I could pick up Pathfinder (I have the Beginner Box but nothing else). Pathfinder is a hard sell to my groups though. There are some who don't want to "go back to 3rd ed" as they see it.

Then the beginners box is a good starting point.  It's short sweet and simple.  Self contained too. If by the time you're done they want to go further, you can point them to the srd or go straight to the books. 

[LunarSage]

The thing with Pathfinder is that it kept all the desirable aspects of 3.5 while tossing most of the bad stuff out the window.  In Pathfinder, staying in one class for 20 levels is actually well worth it, unlike in 3.5 when (for example) there was no real point in staying as a Paladin after 5 levels or so.  Every class gets special stuff to make them cool now.  Stay away from 3rd party "Pathfinder compatible" splatbooks though.  Splatbooks (even the WotC ones) are what honestly killed 3.5.  The only thing that I house rule for Pathfinder is that a Cleric can channel positive energy to heal as a free action a number of times a day equal to his or her Charisma modifier.  We've found that it helps quite a bit to make the Cleric's player feel like he can do things other than just heal every turn. 

[ofDelusions]

As someone who doesn't particularly like Pathfinder, I'd much rather recommend Tomes of Awesome over it for anyone who has played a lot of dnd 3.5. Mostly because it actually seeks to fix some issues with 3.5 such as item and feat system, making non casters actually interesting etc etc. Some people dislike the overly humorous writing style, but it doesn't really affect the play itself. I'd write more but I think this is bit off topic anyway.

[TheGlyphstone]

The thing with Pathfinder is that it kept all the desirable aspects of 3.5 while tossing most of the bad stuff out the window.  In Pathfinder, staying in one class for 20 levels is actually well worth it, unlike in 3.5 when (for example) there was no real point in staying as a Paladin after 5 levels or so.  Every class gets special stuff to make them cool now.  Stay away from 3rd party "Pathfinder compatible" splatbooks though.  Splatbooks (even the WotC ones) are what honestly killed 3.5.  The only thing that I house rule for Pathfinder is that a Cleric can channel positive energy to heal as a free action a number of times a day equal to his or her Charisma modifier.  We've found that it helps quite a bit to make the Cleric's player feel like he can do things other than just heal every turn.

The exception, of course, being anything with the watermark of Dreamscarred Press. Hyperconscious was the only 3rd party book I ever allowed in the entire run of 3.5, and while Paizo is proving quite apt at churning out splatbooks on their own, Psionics Unleashed and Psionics Expanded are, again, proving to be better-quality sourcebooks than the ones printed by the game company they're supporting.

[Chris Brady]

The only issue I'm having is I can tell that both my group and I are going to want to play some more fantasy even after this wraps up. I'm not going back to 4th Ed, no offense to those that like it I hope you continue to enjoy. And I got rid of most of my 3rd Ed/3.5 material some time ago. Since actual D&D Next won't be available I guess I'll either need to turn to my non TSR/WOTC rpgs or I could pick up Pathfinder (I have the Beginner Box but nothing else). Pathfinder is a hard sell to my groups though. There are some who don't want to "go back to 3rd ed" as they see it.

The problem is that Pathfinder IS 3rd ed.  It's a 3.55 variant, and it's got ALL the same mechanics as 3rd ed, with a couple of tweaks, so yes, they are not likely to switch to PFRPG because they correctly view it as 3rd.  Now, if your players were cool with playing 3e, then yes, you'd have no issues, but honestly, I think you're SOL on getting them to try it at the moment.

Personally, I like most of the editions of D&D, although I am burnt out on 3.x.  I will freely and happily admit that PFRPG has some great changes to the mechanics (even if it invalidates most of my 3.x library in the process, but hey, they have to sell books too!)  But for now, I'm willing to see what D&DNext has to say for itself.  And hopefully avoids the 4e powers trap.  Where players have six monsters behind a bookshelf, and the first thing they'll do is look at their sheet and wonder what power to use, instead of maybe trying to push over the old bookshelf on top of the monsters.

I admit, as much fun as I have playing 4e, that's one aspect I miss the most.  It started to leave in 3rd.  Was fully killed in 3.5 (especially with the inherent idea of 'if it's not covered in the rules, you can't do it'.  Maybe that wasn't the intent, but a LOT of players fell into that habit.)

[TentacleFan]

The problem is that Pathfinder IS 3rd ed.  It's a 3.55 variant, and it's got ALL the same mechanics as 3rd ed, with a couple of tweaks, so yes, they are not likely to switch to PFRPG because they correctly view it as 3rd.  Now, if your players were cool with playing 3e, then yes, you'd have no issues, but honestly, I think you're SOL on getting them to try it at the moment.

Personally, I like most of the editions of D&D, although I am burnt out on 3.x.  I will freely and happily admit that PFRPG has some great changes to the mechanics (even if it invalidates most of my 3.x library in the process, but hey, they have to sell books too!)  But for now, I'm willing to see what D&DNext has to say for itself.  And hopefully avoids the 4e powers trap.  Where players have six monsters behind a bookshelf, and the first thing they'll do is look at their sheet and wonder what power to use, instead of maybe trying to push over the old bookshelf on top of the monsters.

I admit, as much fun as I have playing 4e, that's one aspect I miss the most.  It started to leave in 3rd.  Was fully killed in 3.5 (especially with the inherent idea of 'if it's not covered in the rules, you can't do it'.  Maybe that wasn't the intent, but a LOT of players fell into that habit.)

I agree that 3rd/3.5 sort of started it and 4th Ed really put the nail in the coffin of doing things outside the bounds of the base rules. I agree it wasn't necessarily the intent to do so but that's how it felt. Having powers you use at will lends itself to always using those powers instead of tipping furniture. The same is true with the set piece encounters where you have a room, so many monsters, fight. I'm already seeing it leaning away from that in D&D Next with the module being more free flowing allowing PCs to explore where they wish and having to change their tactics based on how much trouble they get up to. They would not have had a good time with the Ogre they ran into in my playtest last night if they had not opted to talk/bribe him.

[DarklingAlice]

Well if you are looking to tide your group over there are editions before third. I think PDFs of the little brown books are available, and didn't WOTC itself just release a print run of AD&D? Not to mention retro-clones like Legend of the Flame Princess or Swords & Wizardry!

[clrpurp]

I agree that 3rd/3.5 sort of started it and 4th Ed really put the nail in the coffin of doing things outside the bounds of the base rules. I agree it wasn't necessarily the intent to do so but that's how it felt. Having powers you use at will lends itself to always using those powers instead of tipping furniture. The same is true with the set piece encounters where you have a room, so many monsters, fight. I'm already seeing it leaning away from that in D&D Next with the module being more free flowing allowing PCs to explore where they wish and having to change their tactics based on how much trouble they get up to. They would not have had a good time with the Ogre they ran into in my playtest last night if they had not opted to talk/bribe him.

When I ran games this was a problem I was having as well. The game has progressively becoming a less of a problem solving/exploration game and more about matching abilities with situation. That's all fine and good but since 3.0 the game really is hostile towards things that are not explicit in the rule. When my friends and I played we always ended up with a lot of house rules, often stealing things from other systems like RIFTS and Shadowrun. That being said, I found Pathfinder to be pretty refreshing when it was released. It had a lot of the same problems 3.5 did, but went a long way towards making the game more playable for non-casters and allowed for some flexibility in the rules. I stuck with it after 4e was released, as for whatever reason none of us got into it.

With DnD Next coming, I will admit to some reservations. The theme has been simplification and streamlining over the last decade, to the point where the game just feels better suited to computer RPGs more than pen and paper. If they could pull back some of that weird magic that 2nd edition had and mix it with the optimizations from 3.x, it could work out well.

[DarklingAlice]

The theme has been simplification and streamlining over the last decade, to the point where the game just feels better suited to computer RPGs more than pen and paper.

>_> *looks at the quote*

*looks at 4e* <_<

>_> *looks at the quote*

So does not compute.

I agree that 4e is more suited to a computer game. And honestly I would actually really love 4e as the system for a console/computer game. But for exactly the opposite reason. For everything I like about 4e, it wound up being too complex and crunchy with lots of little annoying bits that didn't really do anything. Combat in 4e for instance could be so nicely and neatly tracked by a computer and become fast paced and awesome; but when done by five friends you are lucky to get through any encounter in less than an hour and most of the party will get bored waiting the 10 minutes for their turn to come up in combat.

Frankly the game has been getting nothing but less simple and streamlined since the advent of AD&D. I am hoping that D&D next will be turning back the clock a bit!

[clrpurp]

>_> *looks at the quote*

*looks at 4e* <_<

>_> *looks at the quote*

So does not compute.

I agree that 4e is more suited to a computer game. And honestly I would actually really love 4e as the system for a console/computer game. But for exactly the opposite reason. For everything I like about 4e, it wound up being too complex and crunchy with lots of little annoying bits that didn't really do anything. Combat in 4e for instance could be so nicely and neatly tracked by a computer and become fast paced and awesome; but when done by five friends you are lucky to get through any encounter in less than an hour and most of the party will get bored waiting the 10 minutes for their turn to come up in combat.

Frankly the game has been getting nothing but less simple and streamlined since the advent of AD&D. I am hoping that D&D next will be turning back the clock a bit!

Heh, I may have misspoke. I think that the DnDs have been getting simpler, but that could be because I play other stuff during the same time that may skew my perspective. I cannot shake the feeling that they are becoming more "gamey" though, and I am not sure where to place the blame.

[TentacleFan]

Heh, I may have misspoke. I think that the DnDs have been getting simpler, but that could be because I play other stuff during the same time that may skew my perspective. I cannot shake the feeling that they are becoming more "gamey" though, and I am not sure where to place the blame.

I get what you mean I think. The system is getting more crunchy with increased stats and numbers but the types of campaigns being run and modules being produced are tending more towards encounter-encounter-skill challenge-encounter like the scripting in a video game. You move into a room, the area is sealed, the fight happens, move to the next room rinse repeat. Less exploration and less of the living dungeon where monsters retreat back to reinforce another area or call for help and have it arrive the next round.

[Chris Brady]

Every module from late 2e to 4e has been built like that.  Namely due to the RPGA.  It's a standardized format so that everyone playing can get the same out of it.  It's also designed for 'tournament' play.  Problem is it's been adopted by most players into thinking this is how the game is designed.  As someone who's running 4e currently, I can tell you it's not, and it doesn't have to be that way.

[clrpurp]

Every module from late 2e to 4e has been built like that.  Namely due to the RPGA.  It's a standardized format so that everyone playing can get the same out of it.  It's also designed for 'tournament' play.  Problem is it's been adopted by most players into thinking this is how the game is designed.  As someone who's running 4e currently, I can tell you it's not, and it doesn't have to be that way.

I guess I just haven't been lucky enough to get a good 4e game in then.

[TentacleFan]

Every module from late 2e to 4e has been built like that.  Namely due to the RPGA.  It's a standardized format so that everyone playing can get the same out of it.  It's also designed for 'tournament' play.  Problem is it's been adopted by most players into thinking this is how the game is designed.  As someone who's running 4e currently, I can tell you it's not, and it doesn't have to be that way.

I agree that the modules have been that way for some time. I am not as familiar with the late 2nd edition modules but certainly the 3rd edition and 4th edition ones all suffer from that. I think 4th Ed goes a lot further into the system than just the modules however. The fact that almost all of the powers are attacks and many of the utilities are combat oriented as well is part of it. Also the encounter powers, healing surges, second winds, all that lends itself to games geared for fight after fight in set encounters of the type I described above. I do think 4th Ed or any game can be run differently but the system has had a noticeable effect on both of my 2 gaming groups even though they are made up of the same people who played 3rd Ed and various other rpgs in the past in a different manner.

[Chris Brady]

Part of the issue was how some players in 3e could make completely useless characters.  Traps.  Characters that would be great at very little because of a concept, like pure single classed Fighters (wish I were kidding...)  And people who played 'casually' as in they didn't care to master the system to get the most out of it, would often get screwed out of their 'fun', because they weren't helping their friends, their friends (whether by planning or just lucky choices) could simply do everything they could do, but better.  Like mid level Wizards, with spells like Knock, Spiderclimb or Levitate or Fly, Scry could do everything a Rogue could do out of combat, without ever having to roll a single skill.

4e was a response to that complaint.  Not to mention that some classes were just better than others in design.  But that's what you get when you have a Magic fan, and a D&D style magic fan help design the game...

[TentacleFan]

Part of the issue was how some players in 3e could make completely useless characters.  Traps.  Characters that would be great at very little because of a concept, like pure single classed Fighters (wish I were kidding...)  And people who played 'casually' as in they didn't care to master the system to get the most out of it, would often get screwed out of their 'fun', because they weren't helping their friends, their friends (whether by planning or just lucky choices) could simply do everything they could do, but better.  Like mid level Wizards, with spells like Knock, Spiderclimb or Levitate or Fly, Scry could do everything a Rogue could do out of combat, without ever having to roll a single skill.

4e was a response to that complaint.  Not to mention that some classes were just better than others in design.  But that's what you get when you have a Magic fan, and a D&D style magic fan help design the game...

I definitely see your point. We did have characters who made some poor choices and ended up fairly weak as a result, rarely but sometimes to point of uselessness. I personally feel 4th was an overreaction to this that made it so all the classes were too much alike. I know they tried to change that with the Essentials line but obviously that was too little too late.

[Chris Brady]

Agreed, but at least WoTC LISTENED to their players and made an attempt at changing and fixing what was considered broken.  Unlike most other companies out there.  Maybe they weren't as successful, but they are trying to make good on the game.

[clrpurp]

Agreed, but at least WoTC LISTENED to their players and made an attempt at changing and fixing what was considered broken.  Unlike most other companies out there.  Maybe they weren't as successful, but they are trying to make good on the game.

This is the important bit. They have made a serious effort to understand what their players want from them. Even if they manage to fail at the implementation, that at least shows that they are willing to work with the people using their systems. I am hoping Next works out well.

[TentacleFan]

Agreed, but at least WoTC LISTENED to their players and made an attempt at changing and fixing what was considered broken.  Unlike most other companies out there.  Maybe they weren't as successful, but they are trying to make good on the game.

I definitely think they intended to make a good game that was fun and balanced. I feel they erred on the side of balance at the cost of fun but that comes down to hindsight being 20/20. I know the developers were of course trying to make the best game possible with what feedback and ideas they had at the time.

This is the important bit. They have made a serious effort to understand what their players want from them. Even if they manage to fail at the implementation, that at least shows that they are willing to work with the people using their systems. I am hoping Next works out well.

I'm hoping Next turns out well too. There are plenty of other games to play if it should not, but as someone who's played D&D through multiple editions it's nice when it is a game I can return to.

[Callie Del Noire]

Agreed, but at least WoTC LISTENED to their players and made an attempt at changing and fixing what was considered broken.  Unlike most other companies out there.  Maybe they weren't as successful, but they are trying to make good on the game.

Yeah but they lost as much as they gained. They listened but in some cases they were overruled by Hasbro. Like electronic distribution. I had friends who literally lost 2/3rds of their dnd collection with that 2 day pull order. Military guys can't always carry books around and I know a dozen or so who lost out to deployment lack of access.

[TentacleFan]

Yeah but they lost as much as they gained. They listened but in some cases they were overruled by Hasbro. Like electronic distribution. I had friends who literally lost 2/3rds of their dnd collection with that 2 day pull order. Military guys can't always carry books around and I know a dozen or so who lost out to deployment lack of access.

Yes, their pulling out of the PDF market was an incredibly short sighted move. Pirated copies are always going to be an issue online but just like with the record companies before them they are robbing people who want to pay them for their product in the way they want to consume it from the ability to do so.

[clrpurp]

Wait, they had online distribution? I never knew. Funny that they pulled out. It's not like someone couldn't just scan a source book and upload it as a PDF.

[TentacleFan]

Yeah they did for a time. And scanning the books is pretty much what does happen I think.

[clrpurp]

Oh I know about the scanning. But was piracy a real concern that caused them to pull out? I guess I just don't get the way publishers think.

[Callie Del Noire]

Oh I know about the scanning. But was piracy a real concern that caused them to pull out? I guess I just don't get the way publishers think.

That was their excuse. Basically, they came out one day saying they weren't going to supply the pirates with a high quality scan to steal, quoted some outrageous numbers on how small the buyers market was and told venders like Drivethrurpg and Paizo they were to cease sales IMMEDIATELY and that they were to take the online stock off their servers in 48 hours (Some prior buys could be downloaded by people who had bought the PDFs)

A LOT of folks, particularly folks like folks I worked with overseas didn't find out in time and lost access to the PDFs they had bought legally. One aircrewmen I knew had lost his backup and was literally sitting on the edge of a road somewhere waiting on station to be sent after his target and was out of communication for a week. He told me he had lost like 500 bucks worth of sourcebooks.

SUPPOSEDLY when wizards comes up with a way to securely sell their product online, they will resume sales. It's been like 3 years and nothing yet. I lost access to about a dozen classic modules and a handful of sourcebooks.

Net result, eBay prices on some out of print books doubled, you can't find older stuff unless you want to look through the pirate sites and a lot of ill will to Wizards for their high handed handling on a non issue.

[DarklingAlice]

This is going to sound odd, but I really prefer D&D when you as a player have few to no choices about how your character developed. This, to me, was the really big bad of the post 3e D&D age. And I kind of worry that many people are so accustomed to this idea that D&D as a property can't pull back from it. Though I do have high hopes for Next.

In my opinion, players simply do not need a lot of choice related to the game mechanics of what their character does. And the more they are given the worse it is, mainly because it seems impossible to implement. As the amount of choice increases, one of two things happens: 1) you fail to make all choices equally valid (the trap choices of 3e, the essentially mandatory +to hit feats in 4e); or 2) all choices are so inconsequential or similar as to be meaningless (the majority of 4e falls into this category). 1 is bad all around, and 2 is the same as providing no choice, but with a lot more paperwork. I really prefer to create my character at character creation and know from day one that there is a specific path laid out that is playtested, balanced, and ready to go.

A few, big, significant choices can make things more exciting and go a long way to prevent characters from becoming carbon copies of one another; think of things like Specialist Mages across the editions, Kits in 2e, Cleric Domains in 3e, or Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies in 4e. These are major choices that matter and shape your character, but that also put you specifically into something that is well defined and that you know ahead of time works. Contrast that to picking minor, samey feats every two levels (most of my players in 4e quite literally forget about half of their feats every gaming session and it makes for absolutely no difference) and the later just comes off as petty busy work. There is this sweet spot that comes early in the economy of choice and often tabletop games seem to blow right past it.

This is one of the reasons I like Basic so much: 36 levels of advancement and you know right from day one where it's going to take you with a few, key choices along the way: alignment, what you do at name level, what path to immortality you follow, etc. And these are hard choices not because you have to pick out the one best or non-broken path, but because all of them are equally good and appealing. I find that when you get your players focusing less on making lots of little choices about what their character can do mechanically they get a lot more focused on what their character does in the game (not to mention making the choices that they do have a lot more appealing and meaningful to them).

Plus, and this bit is highly subjective: it jives better with my notion of fantasy from the fantasy fiction I read. Gandalf has potent fire magic not because he took a feat last level up and woke up better, but because he was gifted the Ring Narya. Characters like Conan and John Carter have comfortable, archetypal sets of abilities and powers that don't tend to change without some significant in-story explanation and even then only a few times across their entire run. Or to use a modern example: Harry Dresden. He gets personally more powerful in his core class of wizard with all the crazy oddities and strange abilities coming from the creatures he has interacted with and the magical artifacts he acquires (all of which come with big choices and consequence). It's not like he just pops back in the next book going: Oh, I can totally get a +2 bonus to all radiance and fire damage. Took it when I leveled up during downtime. In short I guess I just like the idea that you make these big choices at character creation (and maybe a few critical junctures thereafter) and what changes your character over the course of a campaign are the significant events over the course of your campaign rather than this pseudo-detached system of quantized extra choices.

[Chris Brady]

Yeah but they lost as much as they gained. They listened but in some cases they were overruled by Hasbro. Like electronic distribution. I had friends who literally lost 2/3rds of their dnd collection with that 2 day pull order. Military guys can't always carry books around and I know a dozen or so who lost out to deployment lack of access.

Correction, that PDF debacle was pure Wizards.  Hasbro is pretty hands off with most of their subsidiaries, the let the subs do what they think is right without them messing around, as long as they make money, and so far, out of all the RPG companies, WoTC is still the most profitable pure RPG division.  Even Paizo has to supplement their sales of PFRPG with their novel section, their mini licensing ang selling of 4e products as well.

[Callie Del Noire]

Correction, that PDF debacle was pure Wizards.  Hasbro is pretty hands off with most of their subsidiaries, the let the subs do what they think is right without them messing around, as long as they make money, and so far, out of all the RPG companies, WoTC is still the most profitable pure RPG division.  Even Paizo has to supplement their sales of PFRPG with their novel section, their mini licensing ang selling of 4e products as well.

Really? I had heard the decision to kill all PDF sales was a hasbro decision. I know that the open license changes were due to the staff changes having eliminated the majority of the supports of Open License standards.

[Chris Brady]

I know a couple of people in Hasbro, and they say that the decision to kill PDFs came from high up in WoTC.  And they clarified Hasbro's stance on subsidiaries, namely their hands off approach.  As long as you're making the Big H money, they figure you know what you're doing so keep doing it!

[Callie Del Noire]

I know a couple of people in Hasbro, and they say that the decision to kill PDFs came from high up in WoTC.  And they clarified Hasbro's stance on subsidiaries, namely their hands off approach.  As long as you're making the Big H money, they figure you know what you're doing so keep doing it!

Don't suppose they know why Sean Renolds left the DnD Next project? I know him and Merls have done enough work at Malhavoc that I don't see him leaving because of personality conflicts.

[Chris Brady]

You'll have to ask Wizards, as again, Hasbro has no control over that.

[AndyZ]

Didn't read through everything, but I signed up for and got the D&D Next stuff, and I'd love to get the chance to playtest if someone wants to run the adventure.  Ideally a Wizard, but I'll take what I can get.

[Dhi]

Don't suppose they know why Sean Renolds left the DnD Next project? I know him and Merls have done enough work at Malhavoc that I don't see him leaving because of personality conflicts.

Sean K Reynolds hasn't been involved with WotC for years, I believe you're thinking of Monte Cook.

As for why Monte left, at first I thought it might be a change in direction away from making 5E into 3.5 part deux. But we can see by the playtest rules that no division like this actually took place. It is still the same Monte baby that we were seeing leaks of months ago.

I used to pay close attention to this stuff. Very close attention. As soon as I heard the design team for 5E, I knew what we were going to get. I knew Rob Schwalb was going to trash skills. I knew Monte Cook was going to design like 4E never existed, because the general consensus based on his Legends & Lore editorials is that he's never actually read the 4E rules.

It's not really a secret that Monte Cook has an ego. He once rallied his fans to boycott Best Buy because their returns policy had jilted him out of a few dollars. A lot of folks know that he worked on 3rd Edition, and in fact takes most of the credit for it by referring to himself as "the author of the DMG". Monte later worked on a failed setting, the Diamond Throne. During its launch, Monte said some curious things. He said that Diamond Throne was the D&D he always wanted to design. He implied that while he was being paid to do design work for 3rd Edition, he had been holding back his good stuff for Diamond Throne. He said that all the modularity of 3rd Edition and the power in the hands of the players was actually a bad thing and he regretted ever doing it. The rift that had started forming between WotC purists and third party supporters, Monte grabbed up his shovel and he dug them deeper and deeper along with the likes of Chris Pramas. He made his own message board and surrounded himself with people who agreed with him.

Monte is a self-promoter, but he also seems to believe what he says. After Diamond Throne died, Monte took a chance on the pet project relative unknown freelancer, Mike Mearls. The project, Iron Heroes, was much more successful than Diamond Throne had been. What does it say on the cover of Mike Mearls' book? It says Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes. Monte believed that his own name needed to be on the book for people to buy it. Understand the ego at work there.

Monte Cook continued to have trouble with failed projects of his own. Ptolus, Monte Cook's World of Darkness, Dungeon-A-Day. I'm not disparaging any of these, but they did not succeed. For a time Monte said he was getting out of the RPG business entirely. While Monte floundered, Mike Mearls was going places fast. Mearls went to work for WotC, and did so well with 4E that he was named head of design. This means that when Monte Cook went back to work on 5E, Mike Mearls was now his boss. The upstart whose big project Monte branded with his own celebrity was now his boss. He was coming back to a table full of designers who had moved on and learned new things with the 4E system that he had avoided, and he was still publicly upset from being panned for his supposedly triumphant return in the Legends & Lore column. And Mike Mearls was his boss.

So why did Monte leave? I feel like some conclusions can be drawn.

[Callie Del Noire]

Sean K Reynolds hasn't been involved with WotC for years, I believe you're thinking of Monte Cook.

As for why Monte left, at first I thought it might be a change in direction away from making 5E into 3.5 part deux. But we can see by the playtest rules that no division like this actually took place. It is still the same Monte baby that we were seeing leaks of months ago.

D'oh! Thanks for the correction!

[DarklingAlice]

That's seems like a pretty likely analysis Dhi. I like some of the things Monte has done, but I would never work on a team with the guy. The one time I met him I found him quite rude. I also get the impression from some of his products that he is one of those fellows with a great imagination and cool ideas, that is in too much of a hurry to slap them into rules and move on without thinking about how they would actually play. I think it's a phase that most game designers go through, but he seems to never have left it (could be a factor of surrounding himself with fans and not doing well with criticism).

[Chris Brady]

My biggest beef with the man has always been that he's a Magic fan, and an old school D&D magic fan.  This is why I wasn't keen on him working on D&DNext.

Let me explain:  First off as a Magic: The Gathering fan, he liked the idea of 'trap cards', cards that look good on the surface, but weren't in play.  The feat system was riddled with these, all the flat bonus feats, like Lightning Reflexes and the original Toughness.  Secondly, as he once mentioned in his PTolus design notes, he loved magic so much that when a player saw a polymorphed adventurer in a minotaur and he freaked, the rest of his party explained to him that was 'normal', Mr. Cook's reaction to them treating magic as mundane was nothing short of ejaculatory.

These design philosophies show throughout his productions at both WoTC and his personal stuff.  The entirety of 3e (not 3.5) was full of traps, bad classes (Like the Fighter) and the magic, especially clerical, was overboard in terms of utility and power.  With about 5 spells a 7th level Wizard could BE the entire party.  Scry, Fly, Invisibility and Knock replaces the Rogue and any of the level based Summons could replace the meat shields.  The only issue was healing, but since you could buy wands that anyone can use, just get Wands of healing and you're good to go.

And that was the accepted way to play.

This is what I disliked.

[TheGlyphstone]

Personally, I've never bought the idea that the 'trap' feats and other bad options were the result of deliberate Ivory Tower Design; it always smelt like an after-the-fact ass-covering excuse to explain why they designed and released a game that was, effectively, 50% playtested and only playtested that far according to a specific paradigm.

[DarklingAlice]

I'm with TheGlyphstone. I think that a big problem with 3e and 4e was lack of thorough playtesting and almost more importantly a lack of playtesting multiple styles of play. This is what happens once you reach a certain level of complexity as a game, the amount of playtesting has to increase (and not just linearly with complexity).

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm with TheGlyphstone. I think that a big problem with 3e and 4e was lack of thorough playtesting and almost more importantly a lack of playtesting multiple styles of play. This is what happens once you reach a certain level of complexity as a game, the amount of playtesting has to increase (and not just linearly with complexity).

It's more-or-less on record, though where I couldn't quote. When 3e was playtested, they focused almost all of the testing on the 1st-10th level bracket, and very little in the upper levels. End result, high level play is extremely unbalanced. Moreso, their playtest groups adhered to the playstyle and game formulae of 2e play - the fighter with sword and shield 'tanks', the wizard throws fireballs, the cleric heals, the thief disarms traps and backstabs. They forgot that 3e's more rigid grid structure meant fighters no longer had effective tanking ability, that inflated HP meant direct-damage magic was much less useful, and had a ton of spells they wrote but didn't consider implications of stuff such as Polymorph. End result, incredible disparity in potential between 'magic-users' and 'mundanes'.

I can't speak for 4e, because I don't really like it. But I can recognize it was a good game according to its design intentions (that I disagree with), and was much more thoroughly playtested according to those intentions. CharOp still managed to break the game with at least two infinite-damage builds before the books were officially released, but WotC was also quicker on the ball in paying attention and releasing errata for stuff like that.

[Chris Brady]

Personally, I've never bought the idea that the 'trap' feats and other bad options were the result of deliberate Ivory Tower Design; it always smelt like an after-the-fact ass-covering excuse to explain why they designed and released a game that was, effectively, 50% playtested and only playtested that far according to a specific paradigm.

Actually the 'trap feats' were Monte Cook's idea.  There's an article out there where he pretty much says so, and his apparent anger at 3.5's changing of the delicate 'balance' he created.  I wish I could find that article.

[Revelation]

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142

Said article can be found here.

[TheGlyphstone]

Actually the 'trap feats' were Monte Cook's idea.  There's an article out there where he pretty much says so, and his apparent anger at 3.5's changing of the delicate 'balance' he created.  I wish I could find that article.

I know, and I, as said, strongly suspect he's just BSing after the fact rather than admit the design team screwed up. Considering he doesn't even understand what a Timmy Card is despite working in the same building as the people who coined the phrase, it's not heartening.

[Revelation]

Considering Cookes absolute love for casters and them trodding over fighter types, I can easily see him being on board with the ivory tower design from the get go due to that reason.

[TheGlyphstone]

Considering Cookes absolute love for casters and them trodding over fighter types, I can easily see him being on board with the ivory tower design from the get go due to that reason.

Yeah, but it still smells like the kid on the playground who trips and faceplants, then stands up and shouts "I meant to do that!"

[Chris Brady]

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142

Said article can be found here.

THANK YOU!  Been looking for it for ages, I can now show a couple of friends what HE SAID, and end a couple of arguments.

For the record, I don't hate Mr. Cook.  I just don't agree with his priorities.  What I want in D&D is a 'balance'.  Something where all the players can contribute meaningfully in play, whether it be in combat effectiveness or in general RP or skills.  I want everyone at my table to have fun, and the Quadratic Wizard/Linear Fighter dynamic actively prevented me from doing that.  Designing adventures was an exercise in agony.