So the playtest is out: What do you think? The EN World poll!

[Agamon]

It reads like AD&D (chocolate) got mixed up with 3e (peanut butter) and it mixes well. Some rejiggered 4e stuff thrown in and I really like what I'm seeing. Advantage/disadvantage, checks and saves using ability scores with skill bonuses, themes and backgrounds, all good. And I read all the spells without my eyes glazing over in boredom for the first time since I first cracked open the 2e PHB.

Wasn't planning on actually playtesting, but I just sent out an email to try and get a group together for it.

 

[Kalontas]

I signed up the first day I could, and until today I have received no playtest materials, and links provided by other people did not work (apparently, no permission) so a major screw-up on that part - and any opinions right now can't be positive.

 

[Croesus]

I definitely like the direction the playtest rules are pointing to, with a couple caveats:

1) These are incomplete alpha rules, so I'm reserving judgement concerning the final product.

2) If the final product is like this, my group and I will have to get used to a more old-school, rules-lite playing style. We've fallen into the trap of always looking at our character sheets for the solution, instead of thinking more flexibly. Of course, I'm looking forward to moving back to old-school, so this is a good thing, IMO.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

In general, I like what I've read, though my group couldn't get together to playtest it. It moves away from the crunchy-bit-for-everything that has characterized recent editions. I play GURPS for that. It mostly gets rid of the belief-straining (even in a world of dragons and magic and resurrection) powers that non-supernatural wielding characters (fighters, thieves, rangers) could use a few times a day or "encounter" (whatever that means, in the end) because, well, that's what makes good game balance as opposed to a good story or character. I'm glad they kept backgrounds from 4e, which added depth and characterization and frankly, I don't think they conflict with an old-school aesthetic (themes, however, do).

 

[IronWolf]

I went with the meh option, though it does tend towards the positive side. A couple of the things I did like and there are some I didn't. I do take it as a positive sign after 4e, but not sure it is enough to draw me back to D&D.

I am looking forward to seeing it evolve as the playtests continue.

 

[Rune]

Ran it the other night for two players--one playing the fighter, the other playing the wizard (that's right--no healer!). I let them start out with a healer's kit and a supply of alcohol (because the fighter wanted to play an alcoholic bad-ass).

We didn't have much time to play, so they only had one encounter--a kobold scouting party outside of the entrance to their cave. Basic tactic was to get close enough to throw a rock with the light spell on it up to the kobolds (to mess with their light-sensitivity). I did, unfortunately, forget that the kobolds got advantage when outnumbering, which would have canceled out the disadvantage from the light.

Even so, it was a lot of fun. The fighter spammed his reaper-feat and the wizard spammed magic missile, but it was by no means an immediate win--especially as three of the original six kobolds fled back inside to get reinforcements, which showed up (8 of them), while the PCs were doing good cop/bad cop on the kobold they had captured (when the reinforcements showed up, bad cop (the fighter, of course) killed the kobold.

Then, the wizard, down to 6 hitpoints, retreated to a safe magic-missile distance, cast light on the dwarf's axe, and played artillery support while the dwarf rushed the kobolds to distract (and kill) them. Three got away and fled into the cave. The fighter was wise enough not to pursue them.

We did notice an interesting exploit. Against low-hit point opponents, there is no drawback, whatsoever to being intoxicated for either the fighter or the wizard. I expect they will both drink up before delving into the cave.

I have decided that one potent drink's effects will last an hour, so if they think to use this exploit, they will run the risk of coming across fiercer enemies while drunk.

All that said, we were all in agreement. This game was fun! The fighter and the wizard both (but especially the fighter) were giving the ability/skill checks a workout and the fighter definitely did not feel boring.

 

[Drowbane]

"Meh"

I am not impressed. Granted, it would take a lot for WotC to impress me at this point. I suspect I will be playing 3e on through to 6th and see what its like, probably in two to three years.

 

[Falstaff]

"meh"

i am not impressed. Granted, it would take a lot for wotc to impress me at this point. I suspect i will be playing 3e on through to 6th and see what its like, probably in two to three years.

lol!

 

[delericho]

I liked it. I was surprised by how much I liked it. And I'm looking forward to actually playtesting it.

That said, it wasn't all good. I'm not a fan of rolling for hit points, at all. And I'm a bit disturbed that they seem to have dropped everything I liked from 4e, and kept a bunch of stuff I either didn't like or didn't care for.

But those are niggles, rather than issues.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Obama expresses my opinion.​

A little scruffy around the edges, but any D&D that I can play with only dice and a few sheets of paper, wherever I happen to find myself, for even just a little bit, is certainly on the right track.

I will mention that the distances maybe should be a little more abstract than they are. I'd like something between "mostly ignore them" (what I did) and "track every 5 feet" (which would NEVER have worked). Push it a little farther in that direction, sprinkle a few more robust interaction and exploration mechanics in there, and we might have a recipe for success!