D&D 5E Another D&D Next Playtest Survey

GX.Sigma said:

At the risk of sounding harsh:

The goal of D&D Next is to be the edition that everyone recognizes as D&D, regardless of which version is their favorite. That means making sure the iconic elements of the game are in it. One of those elements is D&D spellcasting, which had existed for 34 years (38 if you count Pathfinder, which many do).

Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding harsh: Maybe that's a stupid goal. I know people who've been playing their homebrewed version of second edition for twenty years. They didn't switch to 3E or 4e; they're never going to switch. And that's kinda the point of gaming for some after a while: you find your comfort zone, the system that fits your preferred style and tweak it once in a while to correct. Perhaps, if they are REALLY flexible, incorporating elements from new editions/different games. I imagine that's the case for a lot of so-called old-school gamers. It's also a stupid goal because the market for retroclones is minute, a drop in the ocean that is the tabletop roleplaying market (which itself is a mere puddle when you compare it to the general gaming industry). And make no mistake, Mike Mearls said it himself, they are making a game that plays like old-school D&D. So trying to bring in lapsed D&Ders with blatant grognard bait is an exercise in futility.

GX.Sigma said:

Everyone who played D&D within those 34 years (i.e., nearly everyone who has played D&D) recognizes D&D spellcasting as an iconic element, and if the game doesn't include it, it won't feel like that same game to them. We have already seen this with 4th Edition, whose radical changes have led many to declare "it isn't D&D." Even though you are not one of those people, you must understand that 4th Edition is the clear outlier in the big picture, and that both tradition and popular demand mandate that D&D spellcasting is a "core" mechanic in D&D Next.

Click to expand...

Ok, and I'm perfectly fine with that, but what is D&D spellcasting? Is it Vancian style casting? Not really because sorcerers and a bunch of other classes broke this universal mold one and a half edition ago. Is it the naming convention? Because I don't feel that the words Otiluke, Tenser, or whatever are actually that important in people's mind. If I called a spell floating disk, gave it a description similar to the one found in the PHB of your choice, would it be less D&D? Is it the power level? Is the fact that spellcasters curbstomp noncasters in all of the so-called "three pillars" of adventuring an element that's essential to D&D magic? Because the list presented in the survey sure made it look that way and it's a position that I feel is both retrograde and bad for the hobbies advancement. Also, I've been hearing and reading complaints about Vancian casting since the days of 2E, it's about time it got retired, just so that we can finally have an edition where we don't have to suffer through those debates again.

I don't mind "lesser" and "greater" spells as a systematic treatment of some variety in spells--as many people have suggested various ways, or as Arcana Evolved used for "diminished" and "heightened" spells. But if all they are going to be is a way to pretend the same spell is two different spells at different power levels, then no thanks.

A spell is a spell is a spell. If we want to make it flexible across multiple slots, make the magic system robust enough to handle that--especially with the talk of having the slots drive the power, not the level of the caster. No summon monster N spells. Have one summon monster that gets different things at different levels. Or if there are going to be multiple summon monster spells, make them really different by how they work and act--i.e. druids make get some summon nature ally spell that doesn't work exactly the same as the wizard's summon monster.

It makes grasping the breadth of the magic system a lot easier to do it the way I'm discussing.

GX.Sigma said:

That means making sure the iconic elements of the game are in it. One of those elements is D&D spellcasting, which had existed for 34 years (38 if you count Pathfinder, which many do).

Click to expand...

Good to know where you stand on this.

I got all the love in the world for 4th players... but you have to realize... it wasn't making them any money. There's a reason they seem to be doing a 180 here, and its hard to blame them.

My comments for each spell level basically detailed what wondrous and unique ways the game comes apart with certain spells from each level and at what point the game is officially broken. My comments were very cynical yet demoralizing only in a spitefully cathartic kind of way. I kind of felt like Phil Connors (Bill Murray) from Groundhog Day probably felt.

The Choice said:

At the risk of sounding harsh: Maybe that's a stupid goal.

Click to expand...

If you disagree with the fundamental principle on which D&DN is based, I don't think it'll end up being a game you're into.

TwinBahamut said:

You say that it is popular, but I've never seen any sign of that. The public polls that WotC held indicated the exact opposite, and I've never seen any gathering of D&D players that didn't have extremely divided opinions on the matter.

Click to expand...

The WotC website, until recently, has been solely a 4th Edition website, and many of the poll responses there seem to be biased in the direction 4e did things.

The fact is, there are a huge number of people who are playing older editions and retroclones. The game they enjoy has vancian spellcasting, and those are the people WotC wants back. They must cater to that group; that's kind of the whole point of D&D Next.

Of course, it is controversial, and a lot of people don't like it. They must cater to that group too. Hopefully they end up with enough options to make everyone happy. The only people who won't be happy are those who insist on the outright removal of material they don't like.

("vancian spellcasting" can be read as any element D&D has ever had)

But yes, this probably isn't the place to debate this.

I told them, I didn't need multiple versions of the same spell, for it to feel like D&D. Just a Cure Wounds would suffice, it gets more powerful as you pump more power into it, to either heal more damage or target more creatures.

I didn't check any of the stat boost spells.

I marked the last few levels of spells as "none of the above". Don't really identify with anything level 8 and up for wizard, and level 7 and up for cleric. Would have checked a few more items than the 10, for levels 1 and 2 for the wizard.

I asked them, where is my Beguiling Strands, Icy Rays, Visions of Averice? Where is my Healing Strike, Divine Glow, Weapon of the Gods? Are these staples at our tables, not considered D&D spells?

GX.Sigma said:

At the risk of sounding harsh:

The goal of D&D Next is to be the edition that everyone recognizes as D&D, regardless of which version is their favorite. That means making sure the iconic elements of the game are in it. One of those elements is D&D spellcasting, which had existed for 34 years (38 if you count Pathfinder, which many do).

Everyone who played D&D within those 34 years (i.e., nearly everyone who has played D&D) recognizes D&D spellcasting as an iconic element, and if the game doesn't include it, it won't feel like that same game to them. We have already seen this with 4th Edition, whose radical changes have led many to declare "it isn't D&D." Even though you are not one of those people, you must understand that 4th Edition is the clear outlier in the big picture, and that both tradition and popular demand mandate that D&D spellcasting is a "core" mechanic in D&D Next.

There will also be ways to play that do not include D&D spellcasting. There will be martial powers and non-daily spellcasters. They are trying to provide sets of options that will make everyone happy. It really doesn't help to complain that the default is not the one you would choose.

In other words: get over it.

Click to expand...

I would argue that it is the spells themselves that define D&D magic. Wizards casting fireball, lightning bolt, mirror image, fly and invisibility - those are what are iconic about the D&D wizard, not the technicalities governing the resource management of them. What I care about is that a wizard can throw fireballs and charm people. As long as he can still do those things, it will still be the iconic D&D wizard in my eyes. Spell slots and preparation are just behind-the-scenes bookkeeping and rules technicalities that are completely dispensible. Like THAC0 or any other rules construct, "vancian casting" can and should be changed if it makes for a better game, and the game would be no less "D&D" for doing so.

Just a side note: one of my friends, who started playing with 4E, tried to answer the poll, but 90% of what was written made no sense to him.
Not a good way to attract 4E people.

Falling Icicle said:

Like THAC0 or any other rules construct, "vancian casting" can and should be changed if it makes for a better game, and the game would be no less "D&D" for doing so.

Click to expand...

Vancian casting is not a mere rules construct. The fact that wizards have a wide variety of spells they can cast but have to limit their choices and study a few every day is a setting element.

I find the comparison to THAC0 a little dismissive; THAC0 was a numerical trick of little importance. Vancian casting gives players of Vancian casters a lot of options but forces the players to make hard decisions every day with consequences for failure. My current character is a Vancian caster, and I can remember a couple cases where he couldn't do much effectively because I chose the wrong spells that day. That I can choose to play such a character is a big part of the game for me, and is part of what defines D&D for me.