D&D 5E Living Dice Article: "Is It Really D&D Next?"

[SatanasOz]

My first response to the Article: Well - there is nothing like presenting your own assumptions as fact

 

[enrious]

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As a 2nd edition, 3rd edition and 4th edition player and DM, I really see a lot of similarities to all of these games.

I wanted to give some examples, but actually finding something that is only in 3rd edition and not also in 2nd or 4th was difficult.

So in a certain way, it seems like it is 3rd edition like, because 3 is the arithmetic middle between 2 and 4.

And this is the direction the rules should take. A blend between 4th and 2nd editon that should have the flexibility of 3rd would be an edition that I really like.
And if the final version resembles the current playtest version it will definitively be a game I like.

 

[Falling Icicle]

You know, I'm certainly not a fan of 4e, and I've been more than a little concerned that they've thrown out just about everything from that edition - and the things they have kept were key things that I didn't like.

There's a lot of good stuff in 4e, and some genuine improvements to the game. WotC should no more simply throw that away than they should clone it.

I agree. There were alot of good innovations in 4e that I'd like to see kept, especially monster design. Even with the very basic rules we have so far, I'm very pleased by the inclusion of at-will spells and rituals, and I think we're going to see alot more ideas from 4e in later versions of the playtest.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Remember from what they've said, they have not really addressed monsters. My guess is that the majority of DMs would prefer monster information to be complete and this should be reflected in their testing. I'm sure it will be addressed come the next playtest.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Noir le Lotus]

I read all the above posts and I must say that these reactions to the playtest are what I feared most :

No-one (whatever their favorite edition is) finds what he was expecting in this playtest. 4th edition fans find it too 3rd-like, 3.X fans consider D1D Next too similar to ADD.

This may be the major obstacle for the success of this new edition.

Good luck WotC !!

 

[Walking Dad]

If you try to please everyone, you please no-one.

---

So far, I dislike the hidden math in the playtest (weapon damage dice changed by class) which is entirely, the return of x/minutes casting and combat buff spell (fully introduced in 3e and abandoned in 4e), the return of book referencing statblocks (abandoned in 4e) and the return of prose spells (abandoned in 3e).

Oh, and I dislike a per day mechanic for fighter abilities. Always able to get a free attack would be a bit much, but I would have preferred a per fight/encounter mechanic for this.

 

[Fifth Element]

There's a lot of good stuff in 4e, and some genuine improvements to the game. WotC should no more simply throw that away than they should clone it.

Indeed. And there are certainly signs that they're incorporating bits of 3E and 4E already, and we haven't seen any of the modular stuff yet. Just the fact that there is non-magical healing is an excellent contribution from 4E IMO.

 

[Fifth Element]

I find the author's characterization of the Hit Dice mechanic on a short rest as "bizarre" to be, well, bizarre. It's exactly what you do in 4E on a short rest, but instead of fixed values per surge, you roll dice. Rolling dice to determine a value for something in-game is hardly bizarre in D&D.

He also mentions regaining all your hit points after a long rest when discussing the new rules. This is from 4E, of course.

 

[Nebulous]

You know, I'm certainly not a fan of 4e, and I've been more than a little concerned that they've thrown out just about everything from that edition - and the things they have kept were key things that I didn't like.

There's a lot of good stuff in 4e, and some genuine improvements to the game. WotC should no more simply throw that away than they should clone it.

I think the final version of monsters will retain a lot of the 4e formatting....but more interesting.