You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 09:57:18 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: D&D Next  (Read 4454 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TentacleFan

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2012, 01:10:11 AM »
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.

Quote from: Cold Heritage
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.

Quote from: Cold Heritage
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.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2012, 01:39:42 PM »
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.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2012, 10:21:16 PM »
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. 

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #28 on: May 30, 2012, 10:32:00 PM »
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.

Online Changingsaint

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2012, 11:15:15 PM »
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.

Offline TentacleFan

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2012, 11:05:51 AM »
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.

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2012, 11:10:58 AM »
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. 


Offline LunarSage

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2012, 11:15:06 AM »
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. 

Offline ofDelusions

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2012, 12:13:07 PM »
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.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2012, 12:18:40 PM »
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.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2012, 04:34:31 PM »
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.)

Offline TentacleFan

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2012, 04:44:42 PM »
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.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2012, 07:15:41 PM »
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!

Offline clrpurp

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #38 on: May 31, 2012, 07:38:47 PM »
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.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #39 on: May 31, 2012, 08:42:18 PM »
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!

Offline clrpurp

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2012, 09:06:54 PM »
>_> *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.

Offline TentacleFan

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2012, 09:12:06 PM »
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.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2012, 09:38:43 PM »
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.

Offline clrpurp

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2012, 09:42:15 PM »
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.

Offline TentacleFan

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2012, 09:47:36 PM »
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.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #45 on: May 31, 2012, 10:44:11 PM »
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...

Offline TentacleFan

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #46 on: May 31, 2012, 11:55:16 PM »
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.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #47 on: June 01, 2012, 01:03:32 AM »
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.

Offline clrpurp

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #48 on: June 01, 2012, 01:10:00 AM »
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.

Offline TentacleFan

Re: D&D Next
« Reply #49 on: June 01, 2012, 01:14:52 AM »
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.