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

[Maliki67]

Overall I liked it more than I thought I would, not sure on advantages/disadvantages but I'm willing to give that a try. themes and backgrounds seem cool, a nice simple way to customize a character. Magic Missile as a cantrip, usable at will, not in my campaign.

 

[Ellington]

Liked it.

I liked the mechanical aspect, except the fighter, which I hated. Armor is a bit iffy. I think 10 spells at 1st level for a wizard is too much. I think some spells are a bit too powerful. Otherwise, I'm a happy bunny.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Pretty happy with it so far.

I hope they keep the current % mix of editions they have appear to have wrapped up in it now.

Love:
Rolling for stats and hps (and lower hps overall)
No grid, movement in feet
Return to more dangerous SoD
Advantage/Disadvantage
Overall feel says "D&D" to me.

Like:
Dwarf Poison immunity, not sure why, but I love the flavor of this
Healing Ht Dice aka, non-magical healing that makes sense to me
No rolling for basic tasks
Electrum!
Rituals (current version)

Not sure about:
Overnight full healing. Rather see a "Roll equal to your hit dice per night of healing", but we'll see.
Unlimited cantrips. Most are ok, not sure about scaling Magic Missiles and the Ray of Frost
Nat 20 = auto-max damage rather than double. We'll see
Armor needs work

Don't Like:
Drunken DR
Suprise round -20 init. Rather see bonuses for people who make their check, than negatives for those that don't.
Dying. Not a fan of the current mechanic.


All of the above is my opinion of course

 

[Dr. Confoundo]

Hated it. All it needs to do is include Weapon Speed, and it will officially have brought back everything I hate about previous editions.

(And before you say "But you weren't *there* man", I've been playing since AD&D. 4e is far and away my favorite edition.)

 

[Evenglare]

Ive been in several play tests and this is not a play test. I feel I cant give any good feed back because I dont know the thinking behind this. I dont know how character are built so I cant say anything about what they get, or when they get it, or what is too powerful, or not powerful enough. They are asking for feedback which I simply cant give , given the amount of test material.

Comparing to the pathfinder play test a couple years ago, they gave options. I specifically remember the hit point options, and which one made the most sense... etc . I can give feed back about what they gave me , sure. The armor table is just... just awful. Other than that, I mean, the material is so basic, that I can and have run almost this exact same game before. It feels like castles and crusades , which is a good thing. However the point still stands, it doesnt feel like a full on play test on the fundamentals of the game and how they are implemented.

I would also like to know the thinking behind some stuff. As an avid HERO fan, the HERO rule books present you with several ways of modifying the system, and what the logic was behind the rules. The play test does not do this at all. Now, dont get me wrong, what is there is alright. But I just dont know how they want me to give feed back when the only thing I can give feed back on is, the premade stuff that I have been given.

If you want the fans to help make the game, then let the fans in on the ground level of game design, not just the front end.

(as an aside, why is everyone saying the advantage disadvantage mechanic is new and amazing? It was featured in star wars saga system long ago, I would have figured it was going to be in 4th edition, and am not quite sure why it wasn't. It is a nice mechanic I'll give you that.)

 

[Feeroper]

Ive been in several play tests and this is not a play test. I feel I cant give any good feed back because I dont know the thinking behind this. I dont know how character are built so I cant say anything about what they get, or when they get it, or what is too powerful, or not powerful enough. They are asking for feedback which I simply cant give , given the amount of test material.

Comparing to the pathfinder play test a couple years ago, they gave options. I specifically remember the hit point options, and which one made the most sense... etc . I can give feed back about what they gave me , sure. The armor table is just... just awful. Other than that, I mean, the material is so basic, that I can and have run almost this exact same game before. It feels like castles and crusades , which is a good thing. However the point still stands, it doesnt feel like a full on play test on the fundamentals of the game and how they are implemented.

I would also like to know the thinking behind some stuff. As an avid HERO fan, the HERO rule books present you with several ways of modifying the system, and what the logic was behind the rules. The play test does not do this at all. Now, dont get me wrong, what is there is alright. But I just dont know how they want me to give feed back when the only thing I can give feed back on is, the premade stuff that I have been given.

If you want the fans to help make the game, then let the fans in on the ground level of game design, not just the front end.

(as an aside, why is everyone saying the advantage disadvantage mechanic is new and amazing? It was featured in star wars saga system long ago, I would have figured it was going to be in 4th edition, and am not quite sure why it wasn't. It is a nice mechanic I'll give you that.)

Interstingly enough, in your post you did give some feedback despite your claim of not knowing how to.

I appreciate that you are not a fan of the way they are going about this playtest, but in case you werent aware (to clarify, Im not trying to sound like a dick, it is just an actual clarification in case you didnt know), WotC is planning on opening it up more, but they are presently trying to focus on the core rules of play to ensure that the foundation is stable. It is actually a really good idea in my opinion, this playtest is going to be several times larger than the PF one due to the name recognition, so its a good idea to keep it focussed. Also, the PF playtest was just based on an existing rulset that was being tweaked, not a brand new system like this. What WotC are attempting is a rather hefty endeavor and requitres care.

Now as to the OP - I am really happy with the rules and am surprised just how much they were able to hit on prior editions and not feel overwhelmingly in favour of one over the other. Certainly there is tweaking that will be needed, but I think what they have oresented here is a great foundation to work from. I say that as both a fan of 4e and PF. Ive been very pleasently surprised by the all around positive reaction this playtest has recieved thus far (technical issues aside). I was expecting alot more anger and edition warring, but it seems to be being recieved rathewr well on alot of fronts here. I think the D&D Next team could potentially have a real winner here if they tread carefully.

 

[FireLance]

Ive been in several play tests and this is not a play test. I feel I cant give any good feed back because I dont know the thinking behind this. I dont know how character are built so I cant say anything about what they get, or when they get it, or what is too powerful, or not powerful enough. They are asking for feedback which I simply cant give , given the amount of test material.

I don't think WotC is focusing on balance issues yet. From the boxed text on page 2 of the Caves of Chaos adventure:

What Is This Adventure Testing?

The Caves of Chaos isn't meant to be a hard test of the play balance between player characters (PCs) and monsters. That process is a continuing one as we refine the rules for monsters, characters and encounter building. Although you should keep an eye on how elements of the rules interact, this adventure is intended to explore how well the rules support different styles of play.

...

Do the rules allow you the freedom to play the Dungeons and Dragons (r) game way you like? How about the adventure? What elements of it didn't work out? What things did you change to suit your taste?

It looks like at this stage, WotC is looking to get feedback on how the rules work together at the broad, macro level, instead of the minutiae of balance. Or to put it another way, it seems that WotC is just trying to answer one key question at this stage: when you were playing, did the rules get in your way?

Back on topic, I voted "Like", although it could be just my natural optimism, or because I want to annoy the haters.

My own playtest report is in the SBLOCK below, but the tl;dr version (which also answers the WotC question above) is:

The system seemed to suit a variety of playstyles: the DM felt that there was more chaos and anarchy in the game because he made ad-hoc rulings in the game, the rogue was happy with his flaming barriers and the baited ambush, the cleric got some roleplaying in, the fighter was simple to play, and I was fairly happy with how my wizard could use some spells tactically.

[SBLOCK]The Players
DM: Played all editions of D&D from Basic to 4e. Has complained that 4e "lacks anarchy".
Wizard (Me): Also played all editions of D&D from Basic to 4e. Pretty much a tactician, so enjoys 4e-style tactical play.
Rogue: Played Basic, 1e, 3e and 4e. Likes to think outside of the rules.
Cleric of Moradin: Played 3e and 4e. More of a casual player, but engages in roleplaying.
Fighter: Unsure of gaming experience - may actually be new to RPGs.

Conventions
We adopted the following conventions (based on on 3e and 4e) since we were not able to determine how they worked from our reading of the rules:
1. A reaction does not consume the next round's action.
2. A rogue who flanks a target with an ally gains advantage on his attack.

Time Played
About one and a half hours for seven or so encounters (see below for details).

Set-up
We were contacted by a merchant who asked us to rescue his son from a gang of kobolds who had captured him and were holding him for ransom.

[SBLOCK=Encounter #1: Combat]On our way to the kobold lair, my wizard, the cleric and the rogue (the fighter was late) were surprised and attacked by six kobolds. The DM ruled that two attacked each party member. My wizard was hit twice and dropped to less than half hit points. The kobolds missed the others.

My wizard quickly rushed out of melee range, dropped a sleep spell on all the combatants (including the other PCs), and three kobolds fell asleep. The cleric then used healing word, restoring a small number of hit points to my wizard, and the party quickly put down the rest of the kobolds with a combination of melee attacks and magic missiles.

After the fight, the DM decided to playtest the short rest rules, so he gave the party a healer's kit for free. My wizard spent a Hit Dice, but remained at less than full hit points.[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=Encounter #2: Exploration, Combat]
The fighter joined us and the party entered the kobold lair with the cleric in the lead. The DM called for a Wisdom save from the cleric, and (after that was failed) a Perception check at -2 from the rogue. The rogue succeeded (rolled a natural 20) and noticed a pit trap before the cleric stepped on it. The rogue decided to trip the trap anyway, which set off an alarm. The party heard the sound of running feet and prepared for combat.

The DM allowed my wizard a Natural Lore check to recall information about kobolds. One successful check later, my wizard remembered that kobolds were disadvantaged in bright light, so he cast a light cantrip.

Meanwhile, as we were in a narrow corridor, the rogue decided to throw oil on the floor to create a flaming barrier. The DM ruled this would be a readied action. When six kobolds appeared, the fighter and my wizard launched an initial round of missile attacks (the fighter missed, but my wizard killed a kobold with magic missile). The kobolds then rushed the party, and the rogue tossed two flasks of oil, killing two kobolds. The surviving kobolds made ranged attacks instead of attempting to cross the flaming oil, but missed. Another round of missile attacks from the party killed the remaining kobolds.[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=Encounter #3: Combat, Ad-hoc DM Rulings]We next encountered a room containing a pile of filth. On entering the room, 18 rats and a dire rat burst out of the pile. The fighter and the cleric decided to charge at the dire rat, stomping as many of the smaller rats as they could in the process.

The DM ruled that a successful stomp would be an unmodified Strength check against the rats' AC, and each PC could stomp five rats each as they rushed the dire rat. However, each rat stomped would also get an attack against the PC. Between the fighter and the cleric, six rats got stomped, but the PCs also sustained 6 points of damage.

The dire rat attacked the fighter and did serious damage due to disease. The other rats then swarmed the fighter and the cleric, damaging them further. The cleric used his second spell for the day, another healing word, curing a small amount of damage to the fighter, and the fighter hit the dire rat, killing it. The DM then ruled that the rest of the rats scattered.

The fighter then took a short rest and spent a Hit Dice, restoring some (but again, not all) lost hit points).[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=Encounter #4: Exploration, Discussion]The party then encountered a locked door, after listening at the door and hearing nothing, the rogue decided to pick the lock. He successfully unlocked the door, and discovered that it opened into what appeared to be a store room with dead bodies and casks of vinegary wine.

The party then discussed whether to proceed further, wait in the room to ambush any kobolds who came for supplies, or to retreat and rest. Eventually, the party decided to camp in the wilderness, and a successful Survival check from the fighter enabled us to find a good spot where wandering monsters were unlikely to show up.[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=Encounter #5: Combat, Interaction, Exploration]Refreshed, the party pressed on further and discovered a big cavern which seemed to be the central lair of the kobolds. The party decided to ambush a patrol of kobolds and interrogate them to determine where the hostage was held. The DM ruled that the party could do this if the rogue could succeed in a Dexterity check opposed by a single Wisdom check for the kobolds. The party gained surprise against eight kobolds, and my wizard with sleep, dropping seven of them. The last conscious kobold was quickly dispatched, and five of the sleeping kobolds were killed. The last two were tied up and dragged back to the storage room to be interrogated. It was at this point that we discovered that the kobolds only spoke Draconic.

After some futile attempts (and failed Intelligence and Charisma checks) to get the kobolds to understand what we wanted to learn from them, my wizard observed that he could prepare comprehend languages the next day, and the rogue responded with a disparaging comment about my wizard's Intelligence (specifically, "You moron!").

The rogue then decided to scount the kobold lair, succeeding at Stealth and Perception checks to remain undetected and to find a burrow from which more heavily armored kobolds appeared to be living.[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=Encounter #6: Ambush, Combat]The party decided to kill off one more kobold and leave the remaining one tied up outside the burrow as bait. When three heavily armored kobolds emerged, the party was able to attack from hiding. In the first round, the rogue attacked and killed one kobold, and the fighter and my wizard damaged another, with a missed attack and Reaper and with shocking grasp. The kobolds' counter-attacks missed, and in the next round, a solid hit from the fighter and a critical hit with another shocking grasp from my wizard killed them both.[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=Encounter #7: Combat]The noise of the fight attracted more kobolds who came investigating, so this encounter occured almost immediately after the last one. One heavily armored kobold and five normal ones rushed out of the burrow.

Since the kobolds were still some distance from the party, the cleric tossed a dagger at the armored kobold and missed. It responded with a thrown hand axe, hitting the cleric for fairly signfiicant damage. The fighter also used a ranged attack, hitting the armored kobold. My wizard used another sleep, dropping four of the five normal kobolds (the fifth would be dispatched by a magic missile from my wizard in the next round).

In the next round, the cleric and the fighter both scored hits against the armored kobold before the rogue maneuvered into a flanking position, attacked with advantage, and killed it.

The party then rescued the kidnapped boy and returned to town.[/SBLOCK]
Likes
The system seemed to suit a variety of playstyles: the DM felt that there was more chaos and anarchy in the game because he made ad-hoc rulings in the game, the rogue was happy with his flaming barriers and the baited ambush, the cleric got some roleplaying in, the fighter was simple to play, and I was fairly happy with how I could use some spells tactically (light to give the kobolds disadvantage, shocking grasp against the heavily armored kobolds, sleep against massed, low-hp kobolds, and magic missile to pick off those who succeeded on their saving throws).

There were several humorous moments, including the rogue's outburst against my wizard and an incident during the interrogating involving the cleric's signet ring and sealing wax that I probably shouldn't go into detail about.

Dislikes
Statting out a swarm as individual rats that get advantage on attacks when attacking with other rats requires too much dice rolling.

Other Observations
I thought the DM actually triggered an interesting encounter by asking us how we were going to locate the hostage when we discovered the kobold lair. Without that prompt, we might have decided to explore the lair room by room instead of trying to ambush a kobold patrol and interrogating the survivors for the information. This to me indicates how much influence the DM has on the pacing of the adventure, independant of system.

It didn't feel like we had a great deal of healing, but it could have been because we didn't play with the cleric of Pelor. Before the first long rest, the cleric of Moradin's healing words and the Hit Dice expended by the fighter and my wizard were not enough for us to recover completely.

We played without a battlemat, so the DM had to adjudicate issues like distance and areas of effect. Although I felt this reduced the tactical element, it was still okay.

My wizard relied quite heavily on my at-will spells in combat, and although he prepared one burning hands each day, he never used it. I guess sleep was just very useful in this adventure. And at one point in the adventure, comprehend languages would have been, too!

The disruption rule will take some getting used to. My wizard should have needed to succeed at a Constitution check in order to cast sleep in the first encounter as the kobolds had just damaged him, but we forgot to do that.[/SBLOCK]

 

[scourger]

I like it, and I think WotC is on the right track. The idea that checks, skills & saves are all essentially ability-based is a great simplification of those rules. Feats seem to be folded into class & background features now (a simplification of 3e). I like the dis/advantage system, but I also like the idea of rolling more dice instead of fewer dice; and I like that the mechanic applies to several different things. It seems like they have streamlined everything but conditions. And, turn undead seems weaker now. But I have no problem with it or magic missile being at-will powers (to use the 4e terms).

My favorite edition is 3e, but it gets too complicated to run after a few levels. I used d20 for a short-lived game of D&D Minis with its campaign rules, and I like converting it to other genres which usually streamlines things--especially when magic is removed--but then it just doesn't feel like D&D anymore. I played everything else back to Basic, but I skipped 4e almost entirely (although I liked Gamma World). The new edition has the hallmarks of a great game in the making. Perhaps the designers can come up with one edition to rule them all--as it were. A good benchmark is that any character or foe should be fully playable at any level with one sheet of paper, front & back as necessary. More options for players is great (fine granularity), but a DM needs fewer things to track rather than more (coarse granularity).

The resurrection of the Caves of Chaos is a nice touch, too. The playtest packet could be a good basic game with some maps & counters.

I even put out a playtest call to my group. It remains to be seen if we will actually do it as our record on playtesting is even worse than our recent history with D&D, but I would like to do it. Since I won't have very many players, I will probably give them a few human henchmen or beserker allies to round out their numbers--a concept stolen from Savage Worlds but it works and it was part of many editions of D&D too.

The one thing I will change is initiative. I'm too spoiled by the card-based initiative from Savage Worlds. I'm not sure about surprise yet, either.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Have not the opportunity to play so far so somewhere between Meh and liked it. Though I voted Meh.
Some things I like, Some I don't and some thing I might change my mind on depending on play experience.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I don't get it.

I realise it's incomplete and only a playtest but it feels like a fantasy heartbreaker created by a fan and not something that WotC would publish.

It does feel and play like the older, faster versions of D&D but it doesn't scratch my personal itches in the same way 4E does.

I don't think I will bother following subsequent playtests: the few blogs and interviews I have read turned me off and now the playtest just makes me think it would have been better if the guys who did Swords & Wizardry (which rocks, BTW) were the designers.