First Impressions?

[howandwhy99]

First Impressions:

This a work in progress. Given the amount of development and editing these documents have likely seen in the last 6+ months, there's a lot of thought behind everything.

It's confusing. Not the formatting, which I wouldn't expect a final draft of. There are definitely rules in place here that really only support specific play styles, from old to millennial to contemporary. There is a lot of 4e school of thought here, but when I go looking a whole lot of it is 3.x too. Shake that up with so much of the old school stuff that doesn't quite know why it's there and the whole comes off as confused. Again, a work in progress.

Many schema in place aren't just necessary. I mentioned breaking the texts into book clumps before, I don't think you need to do that. I'm not seeing the rationale for having equipment in relation to exploration (or anything else). The three tiers of play look like skills, skills, and combat. Let's think outside the box here.

The adventure is going to be difficult to run. It looks a little bland and way overpriced XP-wise for 3 levels. It's appears to be combats all the way through. I like the format and the do-it-yourself attitude with advice in the front, but it needs fleshing out with examples for that. We can place our own monsters too (unless I missed a hidden scheme for that), but it could definitely use some "What they know, what happened before, and what will happen if left unengaged" and stuff like that.

Best thing so far: the beginning. Those first two paragraphs in How to Play. That blended well the old school and new school philosophies and phraseology. I would lead with that and definitely trim down the packet size of this thing. In no way do we need all this info for the first, short-term phase of a long play testing. Let's get focused. It scares me that this looks like everything otherwise as it is a heap o' work.

 

[nnms]

I fully respect your opinion, but I guess it would help if you could also motivate it. For example: why didn't you like rolling twice? Is it just a gut feeling or do you see some other issue?

Prepare for a dump of dislikes that are a tangle of logic, illogic and personal preference. If anyone wants to pull one out and use it as a demonstration that I'm being unreasonable, feel free. I concede in advance. This is about what I'm looking to get out of the game and not about the "universal truth" of RPG design (as if there could even be such a thing). Some of these issues are present in other RPGs I play, but to a lesser degree.

Two reasons for the double d20 dislike:

1) We play on couches and have enough issues with wayward dice without doubling the rolling of the round ones. So we ended up either having to use something to roll into or rolling one d20 and then rerolling it. Not a huge issue, but still a consideration. We don't play dice pool games for the same reason.

2) We have a couple programmers and math people in our group who don't like the variable nature of the advantage the math gives.

3) No granularity in modifiers. While I'm not a fan of a huge chart of +1 for this and -1 for this, I find they get internalized and applied really easily. The extra dice is just an on/off always the same approach. Like "combat advantage" being always a +2 to hit in 4E regardless of what the fictional circumstances actually are.

4) factors get ignored as you only ever roll two and drop one.

Full HP after a night's rest:

1) Constrains our in combat narration of injuries. Given how only going below zero is now a serious injury, we found it boring to narrate maximum damage roll hits as near misses and scratches that will be gone with a single sleep.

3E Heavy/Medium/Light armour

1) Didn't like the "there's an optimal choice for my character and the rest are dumb" approach to it then, don't like it now.

2) In medieval times, people didn't take leather into a fight if they could have their body covered in metal. It also perpetuates the myth that you can't move dexterously in heavier armour, which is all based on things like accounta of fat old man who couldn't get onto his horse without help. Not a huge issue, but a pet peeve of mine.

Weird combination of simulation approach and then weird gamey elements

1) Intoxicated making you give damage resistance. Fun, I suppose. But drunk people are more prone to injury, not less (check the studies of hospital emergency room admissions)

2) Surprise. -20 to initiative? Why not just say surprised creatures go last. In case of a tie, figure it out using any tie breaking method you like.

3) Reactions taking your action away. I get it that you don't want to give people double turns, but these rounds are 6 seconds, not one or two.

4) Searching in combat takes your action. Makes stealth very, very powerful in combat.

5) Massive negative HP. I guess I'm a fan of hitting zero and saving or dying each round. I dislike how you can look at taking d6 damage in a round and decide "we don't need to stabilize him yet, he can't die for 2 rounds even if he fails all his saves."

6) Healer's kit. While I like the idea that you need first aid supplies, why is this fine detail in there right alongside just healing all injuries overnight unless you're at 0 or less? Tracking bandages, but then all wounds just disappear? Seems inconsistent.

7) Don't bother dressing your wounds if you're just going to sleep. You need a healer's kit for short rests, but if you take a long rest, don't bother bandaging or cleaning your wounds. They'll just seal up without doing crazy stuff like first aid.

8) You can just sell everything for half it's price! Yes, I know it's a quick solution, but it makes assumptions about the fantasy world and the specific locale that might not be true. As has been pointed out, you can buy 10 foot ladders for 5 cp, break them apart and remove the rungs and sell them as two 10 foot poles for 2 sp total.

9) Armours that historically didn't have wide usage at the same time are all available at once with some crappy justification that D&D worlds are always a mish-mash of different cultures. What if they're not? And if they were, wouldn't the best armours get widespread use and the other fall out of fashion really quickly?

10) Why is chain shirt light? It just hangs on your shoulders and drags you down. But then ringmail, which is often made of metal attached to a leather backing with much better weight distribution is medium?

11) Light shields? Why even bother? The only reason they were even in 4E was to give certain classes of certain roles access to a certain average armour class.

12) Long bows are simple weapons? Someone should have told the Genoese mercenaries to ditch their heavy crossbows because Long bows are so much easier to use.

13) Non-mundane items like alchemists fire, anti-venom, poison and acid in the default equipment list. Again, makes setting assumptions.

14) Ritual components pouch. I detest gold being used to power rituals in a generic manner like this. I have fond memories of 2E where certain rare ingredient finds suddenly opened up a new avenue of magic. Yes, tracking spell components can get tedius fast, but neither do I like spending gold as a substitute. As if money buys magic.

 

[rkwoodard]

10th time

The more I look at it, the more it reminds me of where 2E could (should?) have gone in the Skills & Powers/Combat & Tactics era. That would have been fine 20 years ago but now won't cut it.

The full Dex for light armor/1/2 for medium/none for heavy was a house rule I made over two decades ago (chain, ring and scale were medium armor).

There are no actual spells on the Wizard's character sheet, just a list and a bunch of text.

The Class/Background/Theme system certainly seems modular, except what is shown is rather bland and half-azzed. It's like wanting a good dark or stout and getting served a Bud Light with a wedge of lemon, lime, a bit of Tobasco on the side.

This is about the 10th post I have seen across the threads where I agree with the analysis but disagree with the opinion. Shows the the WOTC team has their work cut out for them.

My first impression was that they went back to 2nd, updated it to 3rd edition mindset and added some 4th edition quirks.

I like that approach and I am looking forward to actually running the playtest and hope that the development stays on this course.

I agree about the blandness, but, I am being optimistic that is simply a function of a very small focused playtest. I can see where it could really open up to being very flavorful.

RK

 

[Herschel]

Erm... no?

Btw, we're talking about something like a 5 gp difference between the mace and the club, right? FIVE gp. The second encounter in the caves of chaos has a treasure worth 15 gp. REAAALLY horrible, ignorant and stupid design. Way to go, dude.

-YRUSirius

Split five ways that 3GP each, and you need food, shelter, herbalist gear, etc. Math is hard, huh?

And when you're starting out (which is where the playtest starts) you have limited cash. You may have been a soldier, teacher, farmer, fisherman, cobbler, blacksmith, etc. and how well do those professions pay? Peasants don't deal in gp, they deal in copper and a few silver.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My first impression is this is a game that I could play. It has traces of 4E for sure, and some of the stuff I simply dislike, but it isn't overwhelmingly negative in the way 4e was for me (and it definitely feels more like D&D again ). Not crazy about themes (which seem centered around combat and working roles into the game (thankfully they are in the backseat now). Really don't like HD, the healing rates are way too fast for my taste (if characters can get back to full in 24 hours, it feels like a cartoon to me). Not digging some of the class abilities, especially the fighter surge. But I can live with these things. Like backgrounds. Love that vancian magic is back. Excited to actulaly run the thing this weekend and see how it plays.

 

[nnms]

Split five ways that 3GP each, and you need food, shelter, herbalist gear, etc. Math is hard, huh?

And when you're starting out (which is where the playtest starts) you have limited cash. You may have been a soldier, teacher, farmer, fisherman, cobbler, blacksmith, etc. and how well do those professions pay? Peasants don't deal in gp, they deal in copper and a few silver.

Total up the value of the equipment on the pregens. These people are quite well off to get their hands on that much loot to go adventuring. There's more than enough GP to have subbed out one thing to get whatever is the optimal equipment.

The cleric of pelor has 150 gp just in the anti-toxin, healing potion and healer's kit. Another 50 gp for the scale armour.

 

[YRUSirius]

Split five ways that 3GP each, and you need food, shelter, herbalist gear, etc. Math is hard, huh?

Oh, my god. You're right. This game is broken.

-YRUSirius

 

[Herschel]

Total up the value of the equipment on the pregens. These people are quite well off to get their hands on that much loot to go adventuring. There's more than enough GP to have subbed out one thing to get whatever is the optimal equipment.

The cleric of pelor has 150 gp just in the anti-toxin, healing potion and healer's kit. Another 50 gp for the scale armour.

Exactly, starting characters have gotten their hands on a good, but limited amount of cash. They need a lot of gear though and what should they give up, their Healer's Kit in order to buy a fancier club? The optimal thing to do is get the most bang-for-your-buck, which is the club. If you want that facy mace, you wait it's a luxury item.

 

[Herschel]

Oh, my god. You're right. This game is broken.

-YRUSirius

No, the economy is messed up but you'd have to understand basic math and economics to grok that.

Someone doesn't understand the "no insult" rule. Bye. - PCat

 

[Odhanan]

Some thoughts.

This is a role playing game system. By which I mean it does not come off as an hybrid, a board game, a video game, a story game, etc. It's a role playing game.

You could possibly play actual D&D with this. By which I mean "dungeons and dragons", i.e. explore the unknown, face various threats and challenges in so doing, with the promise of rewards or death.

This is not a game in the O/AD&D tradition. It is a game more in the tradition of 2nd edition AD&D and Rules Cyclopedia, maybe, with a rules mesh that is heavily borrowed from 3rd and 4th editions broken down to their barest expressions. It borrows from the old editions in terms of vibe, and you could run your game in such a way as to make it feel very much like a traditional version of the game (like you could run 2nd ed in a traditional way), but what I'm seeing in these playtest documents isn't 'old school'.

I like some things, dislike others, but in my mind, it's not because the game isn't 'old school' that it's automatically bad, or because it'd be 'old school' it'd be automatically good. These are different considerations to me.

The power curve is flatlined, the math of the game is greatly simplified. That is a good thing. There are still modifiers to deal with and "math going on," adding ability modifiers plus skill modifiers and whatnot. That is not so good.

The codification of the character sheets rubs me the wrong way. I get that these are introductory pieces to the game, but some of the tone and the wording of the features, feats etc. reminds me too much of 3rd/4th ed's nitpicky definition of terms. I don't like this.

Love the Backgrounds and their set of skills and particular thing that makes them stand apart: they're simple, straightforward, and can add a lot to a character.

I am FAR more ambivalent to the notion of Theme as expressed here in these documents, which to me look like a codification of 4e's notion of "Roles" in a metagame sense - the striker, the controller, etc. I don’t want that in my game.

I like advantages and disadvantages. They're relatively simple to use and adjudicate, their effect is simple (roll two dice and take the highest/lowest results and poof, done), that can be used with or without minis... it's good. Keep this.

Skills as stuff you do that is expressed as a modifier as part of a class feature, background or whatnot is cool with me. Not having a laundry list of predetermined, edge-defined skills on the character sheet is a very good thing.

The concept of at-wills cantrips for Wizards gets a big "meh" from me, but I can live with it (and house rule it right out of the gate if needs be).

Some abilities of classes rub me the wrong way, such as the fighter's surge, which is arbitrarily set at two times per day, or the dwarf fighter doing damage when he doesn’t hit stuff. "It's just a game, forget about it." Meh.

Some feats showing up in Themes look very much like "feats" in a 3rd ed sense to me, and I do not like this at all.

I like the increase in damage output that meshes well with the changes in hit point determination. More HP, more damage output. The death threshold in negative HPs is WAY too low, however. I would house rule that for my home campaign and get back to something like -10 HPs.

The Hit Points recuperation mechanics are made of suck. This is forcing a play style on me I don't necessarily want when I am playing D&D, which is basically that you manage your short rests between "encounters" until you reach the end of the day, at which point you regain all your hit points magically. I have to assume magically, because apparently the physical part of the hit point abstraction has been thrown out the window: it's ALL luck and skill and fatigue, and no actual health, unless of course all your wounds magically close up after a period of 24 hours? Now I like the *idea* of rolling the hit dice for HP recuperation and managing the number of dice somehow. I just know I would house rule the rests mechanics right out the gate were I to run my campaign with this set of rules.

I don’t like it so much it’s pretty much a deal-breaker, actually: I don’t know if I would even bother trying to find a house rule for this. It’s so fundamental to the game that it’s going to influence the modules and set ups of encounters from there. It is really NOT good at all. All strategic considerations in terms of health are excised from the game. All that matters is the immediate short term tactical management in a 24 hour period. At LEAST nuke that full HP regeneration during long rests, and please either don’t give all HDs back or find a way to mitigate their use, too. Maybe reintroduce the Bloodied condition at half HPs, and you can’t spend HDs on short rests while you are Bloodied. Something like that. Seriously, WTF were you thinking, guys?

The monster writeups are alright as far as I can tell, so far. EDIT - but some of their abilities feel "gamey", like they are just there for the sake of differenciating monsters from each other, rather than being descriptive elements tied to the game world.

If the Enervation ability of the Wight (in the Bestiary) is anything to go by as far as level drain is concerned, this totally stinks, as far as I'm concerned. Everything seems to be short term, "until the next long rest". The basic unit of the game becomes "the next 24 hours". All the strategic aspects of game play seem to have been nuked beyond that. This totally blows.

Some instances of dissociated mechanics annoy me too, such as the fighter's surge, the dwarf fighter's ability do deal damage even when he doesn't hit his target, etc. I thought WotC had gotten the message on this one, but then again... maybe not.

Individual initiative with different mods, I've done it with 3rd ed and 3.5, I'm not going back to it and the way it slows down combat considerably. I would house rule it using a Holmes/Moldvay round structure and group d6 rolls right out of the gate.