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

[rangda]

You seem to have a rather extreme opinion.

I suspect that anyone that has a strong opinion about 4e is going to have the opposite strong opinion about the playtest. Those who thought 4e was an abomination will be inclined to really like the playtest, and those that thought 4e was the best version of D&D will be inclined to hate it.

Sadly for me I am in the latter camp. I have to admit I'm having a really hard time wrapping my head around the return of vancian magic as I consider that to be the biggest flaw of prior versions of D&D (and I went from white box to 3.5e playing nothing but wizards). It seems the rules are moving back to the days of high level NPC's being huge time sinks to create, and high level combats with NPC casters being very complicated. When I wear my DM hat that makes me sad. Perhaps when the final rules come out and the optional bits like spell points are available I would find the rules more palatable; whether they are palatable enough for my group is another matter.

I'd be happy to keep on with 4e but I'm sure the DDI database for 4e will disappear when 5e goes live, and I'm not sure 4e is runnable w/o DDI (for players its fine, but for a GM you really need that item/power database).

Not to say that I don't think 4e has its flaws because it does, my next campaign (Zeitgeist) is going to use a version of 4e with some pretty substantial changes to the rules. But I think the power system (especially the essentials classes) works in play better than classic D&D where almost all powers are essentially blacks.

All this said I expect to be in the minority, clearly WotC are chasing the 3.5e/Pathfinder crowd with this version of the rules. Although if I were playing Pathfinder I don't see anything here that would make me want to switch back, especially factoring in Peizo's fantastic support of their system with modules...

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

(snip) Although if I were playing Pathfinder I don't see anything here that would make me want to switch back, especially factoring in Peizo's [sic] fantastic support of their system with modules...

I still think that WotC needs to publicly address their plans for adventures even though they're only at the playtest stage. I still believe that one of the reasons for 4E's failure is that the adventures blew great slimy chunks and most seemed to be specifically designed to focus on what 4E does badly.

D&DNext is going to need good adventure support if it is going to succeed.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I am quite interested in the playtest as it is written now, knowing it is going to change a lot. I thinkt he basic building blocks are quite solid, and I look forward to playing it out nad seeing what will come of it all.

 

[thekguy]

Looks pretty cool. I think that once it's polished off a bit, I would probably get the starter kit.

 

[rangda]

I still believe that one of the reasons for 4E's failure is that the adventures blew great slimy chunks and most seemed to be specifically designed to focus on what 4E does badly.

WotC has a rich history of making modules that are absolutely awful; their 3/3.5 modules weren't any better. The difference with 4e was the different licensing which encouraged 3rd party vendors to avoid 4e.

WotC needs to wake up and realize that a significant chunk of their customer base is now older and doesn't have time to create content; and that for their game to have a shot it needs a steady supply of quality modules, be they from WotC itself or 3rd party vendors.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I still think that WotC needs to publicly address their plans for adventures even though they're only at the playtest stage. I still believe that one of the reasons for 4E's failure is that the adventures blew great slimy chunks and most seemed to be specifically designed to focus on what 4E does badly.

D&DNext is going to need good adventure support if it is going to succeed.

I have never been happy with wotc adventures, even back in 3e. Ut then i havent enjoyed paizo adventures either. The 3e castle ravenloft was when I realized they are just on a completely different page from me.

Adventures that hit the sweet spot for me have been 40 percent setting/60 percent adventure, with loads of interesting characters, background, etc and no railroading or pre-arranged scenes.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I voted "Liked it," but I'd like to qualify.

In terms of favorite editions, I'm a big fan of BECMI and 4e. So at the moment I think I'm positively inclined because I was expecting far more 3.Xe and little to no 4e in the rules and instead we got a healthy combination of BECMI, 2e, and 4e. And what they gave us from 3.X were the good things that 4e kept anyway.

So we'll have to see where it goes as it unfolds, but for the moment I'm a big fan of the Advantage mechanic and reproducing 4e roles and class abilities in the form of themes.

I have just read about next edition, but I think you are right in your assesment. Currently, it's a mix that looks easy to pick and just play with quite streamlined mechanics and less "run-out-of-spells" issues.

 

[Alarian]

After having played D&D over the past 33 years it saddens me that all I am going to have left are those fond memories.

My group and I tried this playtest, we got 15 minutes into it and tossed it into the round file.

Please WotC shrivel up and go away, you're only making it worse.

If you only put 15 minutes into it I think it's safe to say you and your groups mind was made up before you even saw it. Why did you even bother to print it out?

 

[Firebeetle]

I suspect that anyone that has a strong opinion about 4e is going to have the opposite strong opinion about the playtest. Those who thought 4e was an abomination will be inclined to really like the playtest, and those that thought 4e was the best version of D&D will be inclined to hate it.

Sadly for me I am in the latter camp. I have to admit I'm having a really hard time wrapping my head around the return of vancian magic as I consider that to be the biggest flaw of prior versions of D&D (and I went from white box to 3.5e playing nothing but wizards). It seems the rules are moving back to the days of high level NPC's being huge time sinks to create, and high level combats with NPC casters being very complicated. When I wear my DM hat that makes me sad. Perhaps when the final rules come out and the optional bits like spell points are available I would find the rules more palatable; whether they are palatable enough for my group is another matter.

I'd be happy to keep on with 4e but I'm sure the DDI database for 4e will disappear when 5e goes live, and I'm not sure 4e is runnable w/o DDI (for players its fine, but for a GM you really need that item/power database).

Not to say that I don't think 4e has its flaws because it does, my next campaign (Zeitgeist) is going to use a version of 4e with some pretty substantial changes to the rules. But I think the power system (especially the essentials classes) works in play better than classic D&D where almost all powers are essentially blacks.

All this said I expect to be in the minority, clearly WotC are chasing the 3.5e/Pathfinder crowd with this version of the rules. Although if I were playing Pathfinder I don't see anything here that would make me want to switch back, especially factoring in Peizo's fantastic support of their system with modules...

Ditto. I love 4E and the part of her I love the most is the quick setup for DMs. I do NOT want to return to spending 3 hours building a villain NPC that a single character takes out in 3 rounds flat. Suckage, we need to keep the DM friendly side of 4E well intact.

I too am very worried about losing digital support for 4E when D&D Next arrives. I supported D&D during the edition wars, and I don't want to be ostracized because our side surrendered. Call me a Browncoat. There needs to be some option to purchase a digital version of the current DDI tools at the end of this road for all of us loyal fans.

My biggest gripe would be the lackluster monsters. 4E had firebeetles that were really on fire. As my namesake, I really dug that. Now they're back to being giant versions of their real world counterparts. Bleh. Monsters don't do cool things anymore, why not? I liked the coolness, and it makes combats more fun. Bring more 4E in here.

Heck, bring more 4E into all the DM side of the game and I'll stop grousing and actually shill out some money for the next edition.

 

[3catcircus]

Ran our first play-test tonight.

1. Combat is quick. No AoOs, no iterative attacks, and no need for grids and minis - but who knows if that'll end up in the final product?

2. We found ourselves wondering what the differences were between darkness, dim light, and regular light - it seemed like it would be worth the trouble to purposely make the PCs light sources end up extinguished, but the playtest pack didn't provide enough details - would this an advantage/disadvantage type of situation, or provide modifiers like cover?

3. We like that short rests require use of a healing kit and are limited. The long rests need to be fixed. At 1st level, healing a single HD worth of hp is plausible, but what about at 10th level - healing all hp seems too good. Perhaps you heal a random amount equal to your total HD, without needing the healing kit?