Agamon
Adventurer
This is the best news so far, IMO. This idea in 4e was awesome, the execution, no so much. Can't wait to check this out in the coming months....
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
After DDXP, how are you feeling about D&En?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
This is the best news so far, IMO. This idea in 4e was awesome, the execution, no so much. Can't wait to check this out in the coming months....
Nebulous
Legend
I ran 4e for a long time, long enough to get tired of it and never want to go back. But i wouldn't want to go back to 3.5 either, i'd like to see the game evolve into something new. So yes, i'm excited. But...i get this vibe too, i don't think DnD Next is going to appeal to 4e lovers nearly as much as other groups. That said, give it a year and some crunchy supplements, and it probably will resemble 4e very closely for those that want to recreate tactical grid combat.
Agamon
Adventurer
Question in seminar: What would you like to see from older editions of D&D?
Rob: The Great Wheel would be cool
Internet: Oh noes, the great wheel is going to be core in 5e!!!
Me: Zuh?
avin
First Post
What? I find the opposite and have no dog on this race
In fact, it's a pretty easy mix. I've done it in my 4E Planescape games.
- Faerie (Feywild) and Shadoe as paralel? No problem on Great Wheel.
- Elemental Chaos changed to a place where all Elemental Planes intersect.
- Ethereal Plane back.
- Astral Plane doesn't have dominions, but roads to other planes.
- A few adjusts and it's done.
If Wizards wants to contact me (charge free) I'll send my notes
Probably.
But, please, they need to stop with 4E's idea of World Creation where everything is explained as Gods vs Primordials and everything exists because of it. 4E killed divine mystery.
Aldarc
Legend
I get the exact opposite vibes from this board.
Meh. If I wanted to do what I'm seeing, I'd just pick up C&C or something else heralded as "old school". Which I don't.
Yes, I'm aware that there will be modules to change it, but let's put it this way: if you have to put a whole lot of fixings on a hamburger just to make it taste good, then that's not really a good burger.
I like some of their stated design goals, but not a whole lot of what I'm seeing. So while I'll wait and see, I'm restocking my bunker for the Next Great Edition War.
Yes, I'm aware that there will be modules to change it, but let's put it this way: if you have to put a whole lot of fixings on a hamburger just to make it taste good, then that's not really a good burger.
I like some of their stated design goals, but not a whole lot of what I'm seeing. So while I'll wait and see, I'm restocking my bunker for the Next Great Edition War.
Last edited:
I'll start with the caveat, my words will be harsh, but I understand they are in the early stages of development, and many things can change.
My first impression is, we already have this game on our shelves (or in my case, a cardboard box in the crawl space). Its pages are a bit yellower from age, and I might have some difficulty finding my bundle of house rules, but it is the same game. When I played this "next" iteration, it felt like I was playing AD&D with a bunch of house rules, and since those house rules are coming from the house of WoTC, we're just calling them rules. I don't really see the point.
I love many aspects of 4e. I think it was a step or three in the right direction. Maybe they lost a few flavor aspects, high level play got a bit out of hand, character presentation is poor, and mapless play lost its appeal, but those are things that could be addressed in a new edition. I've run a number of 4e session where there was combat, but I used a large scale map rather loosely, and it works fine. I don't feel a map is absolutely necessary to make 4e work. I've experimented with better representation of character information, I've taken precautions in my home games so some of the high level play options don't get out of hand. I like the "DM education" concepts they are preaching for the next edition, reigning in attack/defense bonuses, and a few other aspects. But those things could also be done on the 4e framework.
I would have much rather seen them go forward, rather than this whole zen approach of starting from basic D&D, and building up again, to rediscover the game of Dungeons and Dragons. It seems like a whole lot of work to give us something we already have. Yes most of our rules were hand written and in binders, but they were exactly how we wanted them to be. And we've moved on (well... admittedly, some of us haven't).
I played a dwarf cleric in the play test (i think I'm allowed to say that), and it felt very lackluster (after having played numerous 4e characters from level 1). My healing was pointless. I found only one combat useful spell among the 6 or 7 I had access to. Best thing I could do was swing my hammer or throw an axe, neither of which I did particularly well. I didn't feel like a dwarf, I didn't feel like a cleric, I didn't feel like an adventurer who could climb, jump, come up with solutions to puzzles, or invoke the name of his god in battle for tangible benefits. It was very bland, and very uninspiring. I had an AC, I had hit points, I could swing a weapon, and I could do damage. I guess we're calling that D&D these days. We did some mindless hack and slash, and though it was challenging at times, I quickly got bored with it. There was no story in the adventure, which was quite disappointing. A sandbox is not really appropriate for a play test. When I tried to do interesting things in combat, the options were not available to me. Aside from some interaction with terrain, it didn't look like there was any flavor to anything we could do.
It also felt a little bit like a board game, where you don't really care if your character dies, you'll just get another one from the box, and keep playing. I had a sense of the character being disposable, not a very good feeling for a role playing game.
And all the elements I hated from earlier editions seemed to crop into this edition. I don't care to collect weapons and armor from enemies we've dropped, just so we can sell them at half price and collect a few silver coins to buy ammunition. I don't care to have to take the rest of the day off after 5 minutes of adventuring. I guess I just no longer like "old skool" D&D. I felt the same way about 8 months ago when I tried Pathfinder. I've been spoiled by 4th edition, the edition of heroic games. I just want to go forward from here, not backwards. In 4th edition I feel great freedom in the DM chair to create adventures, to create a campaign, exactly the way it is in my vision.
They could easily achieve their "simple character" goal they seem to have with this edition, using any other edition. The things they are talking about for the simple characters is just a glorified pregenerated character. You can swap out components for customization. So, take a pregen character, and start retraining feats, powers, stats, etc, and voila, you have a "simple" character, and a "custom" character.
I will wait to see more, to see how the next layer of development will work out, and I will look through the open play test documents when they are available, but I am not optimistic. When 4e was coming out, I was hyped about everything, scoured ENWorld for every new tidbit of information, and ran demos the moment they were available. For next edition, I'm not sure I even want to be involved in play test, or give any feedback, because it would not be constructive. I would just sound like a hater and be ignored.
In conclusion, before DDXP, I was mildly intrigued but skeptical, after DDXP, I'm pretty disappointed with a very tiny spark of hope that lots will change when that next layer of granularity is added to the system. I want to like the next edition, because they are adding some good ideas in. But they are taking out way more than they are adding for my taste.
My first impression is, we already have this game on our shelves (or in my case, a cardboard box in the crawl space). Its pages are a bit yellower from age, and I might have some difficulty finding my bundle of house rules, but it is the same game. When I played this "next" iteration, it felt like I was playing AD&D with a bunch of house rules, and since those house rules are coming from the house of WoTC, we're just calling them rules. I don't really see the point.
I love many aspects of 4e. I think it was a step or three in the right direction. Maybe they lost a few flavor aspects, high level play got a bit out of hand, character presentation is poor, and mapless play lost its appeal, but those are things that could be addressed in a new edition. I've run a number of 4e session where there was combat, but I used a large scale map rather loosely, and it works fine. I don't feel a map is absolutely necessary to make 4e work. I've experimented with better representation of character information, I've taken precautions in my home games so some of the high level play options don't get out of hand. I like the "DM education" concepts they are preaching for the next edition, reigning in attack/defense bonuses, and a few other aspects. But those things could also be done on the 4e framework.
I would have much rather seen them go forward, rather than this whole zen approach of starting from basic D&D, and building up again, to rediscover the game of Dungeons and Dragons. It seems like a whole lot of work to give us something we already have. Yes most of our rules were hand written and in binders, but they were exactly how we wanted them to be. And we've moved on (well... admittedly, some of us haven't).
I played a dwarf cleric in the play test (i think I'm allowed to say that), and it felt very lackluster (after having played numerous 4e characters from level 1). My healing was pointless. I found only one combat useful spell among the 6 or 7 I had access to. Best thing I could do was swing my hammer or throw an axe, neither of which I did particularly well. I didn't feel like a dwarf, I didn't feel like a cleric, I didn't feel like an adventurer who could climb, jump, come up with solutions to puzzles, or invoke the name of his god in battle for tangible benefits. It was very bland, and very uninspiring. I had an AC, I had hit points, I could swing a weapon, and I could do damage. I guess we're calling that D&D these days. We did some mindless hack and slash, and though it was challenging at times, I quickly got bored with it. There was no story in the adventure, which was quite disappointing. A sandbox is not really appropriate for a play test. When I tried to do interesting things in combat, the options were not available to me. Aside from some interaction with terrain, it didn't look like there was any flavor to anything we could do.
It also felt a little bit like a board game, where you don't really care if your character dies, you'll just get another one from the box, and keep playing. I had a sense of the character being disposable, not a very good feeling for a role playing game.
And all the elements I hated from earlier editions seemed to crop into this edition. I don't care to collect weapons and armor from enemies we've dropped, just so we can sell them at half price and collect a few silver coins to buy ammunition. I don't care to have to take the rest of the day off after 5 minutes of adventuring. I guess I just no longer like "old skool" D&D. I felt the same way about 8 months ago when I tried Pathfinder. I've been spoiled by 4th edition, the edition of heroic games. I just want to go forward from here, not backwards. In 4th edition I feel great freedom in the DM chair to create adventures, to create a campaign, exactly the way it is in my vision.
They could easily achieve their "simple character" goal they seem to have with this edition, using any other edition. The things they are talking about for the simple characters is just a glorified pregenerated character. You can swap out components for customization. So, take a pregen character, and start retraining feats, powers, stats, etc, and voila, you have a "simple" character, and a "custom" character.
I will wait to see more, to see how the next layer of development will work out, and I will look through the open play test documents when they are available, but I am not optimistic. When 4e was coming out, I was hyped about everything, scoured ENWorld for every new tidbit of information, and ran demos the moment they were available. For next edition, I'm not sure I even want to be involved in play test, or give any feedback, because it would not be constructive. I would just sound like a hater and be ignored.
In conclusion, before DDXP, I was mildly intrigued but skeptical, after DDXP, I'm pretty disappointed with a very tiny spark of hope that lots will change when that next layer of granularity is added to the system. I want to like the next edition, because they are adding some good ideas in. But they are taking out way more than they are adding for my taste.
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
After reading all I can about 5E, the seminar, playtesters' experiences, and Monica Bellucci's taste in lingerie, my weasel is feeling slightly molested, but optimistic.
DMKastmaria
First Post
I'm starting to get the idea that the folks who are going to like 5e, are the ones who can enjoy playing 1e, without thinking "it's broken," 4e, without thinking "it doesn't feel like D&D," and 3e, without thinking "it's too overwrought."
Like Bill Cavalier recently said: "Does this game have dungeons? Does this game have dragons? I want to play this game!"
Anyone too married to their current system and play style, is going to be disappointed. I would include myself in that particular demographic.
Like Bill Cavalier recently said: "Does this game have dungeons? Does this game have dragons? I want to play this game!"
Anyone too married to their current system and play style, is going to be disappointed. I would include myself in that particular demographic.
Last edited:
Yeah, not a big fan of this type of thing.
The articulate intelligent player gets "advantage" nearly every session. The shy introverted player doesn't.
I understand that some people will say, "Well, this might pull the shy person out of his shell", but that's not really the job of the game mechanics. I'm not too keen on game mechanics that give advantages to some individual players and not to others. I prefer a more equitable system and have a strong fairness streak in me.
I also am a fan of "let the dice fall the way they fall" and am not into Karma systems.
