Playtest Update

WheresMyD20 · Jun 26, 2012

Judging from the playtest, I wouldn't buy 5e. Between racial features, class features, feats, backgrounds, themes, etc., there are way too many fiddly bonuses and rule exceptions built into each character. Keep the core simple, please.

mlund · Jun 26, 2012

WheresMyD20 said:
Judging from the playtest, I wouldn't buy 5e. Between racial features, class features, feats, backgrounds, themes, etc., there are way too many fiddly bonuses and rule exceptions built into each character. Keep the core simple, please.

Core rules need to be simple, yes, but also interesting. Complaining about races, themes, classes, and backgrounds is pretty pointless when there's already an established option to remove themes and backgrounds and nobody has a gun to their head to play a non-human.

Odd thing, though, Wizards and Clerics have spell lists that are basically nothing but a giant pile of hyper-specialized fiddledy bits.

- Marty Lund

stevelabny · Jun 26, 2012

The fact that most people seem to like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic tells me that either I'm broken or that most people will just like anything that involved rolling more dice and aren't looking deeper.

Its a simple mechanic that singlehandedly undoes so many other things. It makes crits boring, it makes mobs of like creatures tedious, it is so big a swing that it has to be used sparingly which in turn makes it pointless, it removes advantage stacking, and it takes the excitement away from watching the die on an important roll.

And I simply don't think that the impact of most of these things will be felt in one or two playtest sessions.

Oh well.

WheresMyD20 · Jun 26, 2012

mlund said:
Core rules need to be simple, yes, but also interesting. Complaining about races, themes, classes, and backgrounds is pretty pointless when there's already an established option to remove themes and backgrounds and nobody has a gun to their head to play a non-human.

Odd thing, though, Wizards and Clerics have spell lists that are basically nothing but a giant pile of hyper-specialized fiddledy bits.

- Marty Lund

Agreed on the spells.

As far as races, themes, and backgrounds go, I think they should be modules, not part of the base game. Generally speaking, it's a lot easier to add stuff like that to a simple base than it is to remove them from a more complex game.

mlund · Jun 26, 2012

WheresMyD20 said:
Agreed on the spells.

As far as races, themes, and backgrounds go, I think they should be modules, not part of the base game. Generally speaking, it's a lot easier to add stuff like that to a simple base than it is to remove them from a more complex game.

They are modules in the sense that they can be safely removed without bringing the rest of the Core rules crashing down and leaving an unplayable game. They are simply modules that are included in the default assumptions for further modules to be added.

If you're worried about "fidgety bits" like races and backgrounds most PC-related modules aren't going to be designed for your play style anyway. "Basic" is an easy optional configuration for the spartan niche, though probably not a very effective intro tool compared to pre-gens with at least fixed backgrounds.

- Marty Lund

Consonant Dude · Jun 26, 2012

The percentage of people liking the direction of the next edition is not that important. What's more important is how WotC responds to the feedback they get and the most important thing of all is what the new edition will look like when we get the chance to buy the final product.

So being pessimistic or optimistic about the percentage at this point in time is irrelevant and a supremely pointless exercise in wasting time.

As for the article, I'm personally worried. Mearls says the most frequent praise they got was fans telling them how faster and streamlined it was. He then proceeds to say they're gonna add a bunch of clutter and useless details and "options" that those same fans are claimoring for.

It's becoming a running gag when designing new editions of DnD or knockoffs like Pathfinder. Everyone starts by being fed up with clunky, slow systems and starts from the basics. Then they add and add and add until it is just as pointlessly clunky or worse.

Is it that hard to get that DnD needs to be simple to be accessible and successful in the long term?

Note to fans and designers who want a faster, simpler game as well as a gazillion useless detailed options: You can't get both. It's one or the other.

Echohawk · Jun 26, 2012

CasvalRemDeikun said:
Exactly. If those polled were an accurate sample of D&D fans worldwide and 60% were pleased, THAT would be a pretty good sample. This, on the other hand, is people who are actually interested in 5E and potential buyers. They only have made 60% happy with the direction 5E is going. That 60% isn't necessarily composed entirely of people that preach the gospel of 5E either. Whereas the 40% is composed of people that, if 5E continues in the direction it is headed, they are likely NOT to buy it.

You are making an assumption here that if 60% of the survey respondents said they liked the current direction of D&D Next, then the other 40% said that they didn't like the current direction. But that doesn't correctly represent all of the the survey options. Perhaps the remaining 40% were split between just 5% who disliked the direction of D&D Next, and 35% who were simply neutral or undecided?

CasvalRemDeikun · Jun 26, 2012

Echohawk said:
You are making an assumption here that if 60% of the survey respondents said they liked the current direction of D&D Next, then the other 40% said that they didn't like the current direction. But that doesn't correctly represent all of the the survey options. Perhaps the remaining 40% were split between just 5% who disliked the direction of D&D Next, and 35% who were simply neutral or undecided?

In this economy, people tend not to buy stuff that makes them go "meh". And ultimately, in this case, the neutrals are still not happy with the direction the game is going, they just aren't unhappy either. Which ultimately means the game has not drawn them in yet, which after only one playtest is probably to be expected. We have no way of determining how Mike arrived at the number he did, for all we know, neutral was included in his 60% or was taken out entirely. Still, bottom line, 40% of people are NOT happy with the way the game is headed, whether it is because they haven't developed an opinion yet, or they flat out don't like it.

Fifth Element · Jun 26, 2012

sheadunne said:
My issue is only with the roll an extra die mechanic. Less dice not more. There are already too many ways to get advantage/disadvantage in the play test. There will be hundreds more. And it wouldn't surprise me to see the mechanic carried even further with allowing another d20 roll with certain spells and abilities. Now you're rolling 3 d20s to hit and taking the highest/lowest. Just make it a +2/-2 and lets move on.

But realistically the adv/dis mechanic is replacing the recent-edition tendency of many bonuses. It's +2 from this and +3 from that and another +1 from over there. Did I forget any? No? Okay, I'll roll. Darn it, missed by one. Who's next? Wait! I forgot the other +1! So I made it.

Besides that, of course, a bonus makes you able to accomplish things you otherwise couldn't, whereas advantage only increases your chances of success, without changing what you can accomplish.

I'm assuming that with your "less dice" position that you want to get rid of damage rolls as well?

Mercutio01 · Jun 26, 2012

Fifth Element said:
But realistically the adv/dis mechanic is replacing the recent-edition tendency of many bonuses. It's +2 from this and +3 from that and another +1 from over there. Did I forget any? No? Okay, I'll roll. Darn it, missed by one. Who's next? Wait! I forgot the other +1! So I made it.

Besides that, of course, a bonus makes you able to accomplish things you otherwise couldn't, whereas advantage only increases your chances of success, without changing what you can accomplish.

And, I think, the bonus for adv/dis is that it scales with level better than a flat +/- modifier.