Oh My Goodness! That looks like D&D!

[thecasualoblivion]

Would it help to replace them with dragonborn, warforged, tieflings and goliath warblades, runepriests, ninjas and wild mages?

Kinda, but I would also want Fighters, Rogues, and Clerics to have the option not to be boring and mundane(the 5E Wizard is fine in this regard atm)

 

[Tovec]

Skills: Pre 3e you have percentile (Thief) skills, NWP slots or no skills at all. After 3e you have only trained/untrained. In 5e you have skills with granular proficiency, just like in 3e, except the math is flatter.
(Base) Attack bonuses: None in 4E, now they're back. Yes they're flatter but they ascend with level and vary by class (The fighter goes from +3 to +4 for example, while the cleric stays at +2).
Feats/Specialties: Non existent in early D&D, brought about in 3E their new incarnation vaguely recalls both 2E kits and Weapon Proficiencies from that same period and 3E feats more than their 4E counterparts.
Saves: vs Effect pre 3E, Defenses after 4E, rolling your stat vs a DC to save, relating to how you save against an effect is very 3E, except it has expanded to six saves. As such, the class bonus to a stat and the stat increases with level can be seen as advancing your saves as well.
Monsters: Monsters weren't really build "like PCs" in 3E either. You didn't go about building a dragon the way you would build a character. And the designers have already said this option will be available. Nothing is stopping you from building a NPC villain from PC bits.

Saying that the 5E Cleave is not like the 3.5 Cleave doesn't really constitute and argument about similarity. It's not the same game. Even the 3.5 Cleave is not the same as the 3E cleave is not the same as the Pathfinder Cleave. These are mechanical retoolings, nerfings, balancing issues.

But looking at the mechanical framework I would say 5E looks the most like 3E/2E, but with 4E's attention to balance, clean math and streamlining and some of 1E/Basic's aspirations to simplicity and basics.

Of course 5E is its own game. But I would say it's more like 2E/3E than both 1E or 4E in most of its systems by far.

So far I'm having a hard time seeing the 3e that is all I'm saying. You brought up a number of areas where things are pre-3e or 3e and 4e, but the 3e-ness is hard to find. I get you think it resembles 2e/3e but I'm having a hard time seeing the 3e of it. That is fine though as they seem to be universally going for an AD&D feel, but it just isn't the game I'm used to playing.
It feels to me like a 2e game with a 3e chassis (like I said before ascending AC) with 4e bits thrown on for "balance" - whether or not it is balanced yet remains to be seen.

As a quick aside, what game do you prefer? 1/2/3/4e?

Also, everything I'm saying is before playtesting packet number 2, that may all change but considering it's been a day I can only give you my impressions. It may be solid but so far for me it doesn't have that feel.

I like the slower curve. Basic didn't increase attack or saves every level, and neither should this.

My point exactly. @Teataine It has the power curve of Basic not 3e.

This preserves unique class feel for me. If you don't like it, don't play a classes based game.

[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] I can only speak for myself when I say that this isn't a fair statement. Why don't you go play another game. He was giving an opinion which is neither right or wrong. You can't go from his opinion to your thinking it should be the way he dislikes to telling him to go play something else. Why don't you so we can have what we like? Oh that's right we wouldn't say the same thing.

Oh, and WOTC has done an even worse job than usual of making its suggestions reasonable. Lots of them are laughably wrong.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

[B.T.]

Kinda, but I would also want Fighters, Rogues, and Clerics to have the option not to be boring and mundane(the 5E Wizard is fine in this regard atm)

Just reskin a wizard as a fighter.

 

[Remathilis]

[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] I can only speak for myself when I say that this isn't a fair statement. Why don't you go play another game. He was giving an opinion which is neither right or wrong. You can't go from his opinion to your thinking it should be the way he dislikes to telling him to go play something else. Why don't you so we can have what we like? Oh that's right we wouldn't say the same thing.

Then I fail to see his point. (I hope he comes and clarifies).

We right now have four classes. One excels at combat (fighter), one excels at spells (wizard), one excels at skills (rogue) and one excels at healing (cleric). We don't have any of the hybrid or secondary classes yet (which usually merge some elements from different posts), so we have the four goal posts on the four areas of D&D.

To complain that the best person for fighting is the fighter defeats the purpose. Do we want clerics, rogues and wizards all equal to him in combat? Do we want clerics, fighters and wizards to be as skilled as rogues? Do we want fighters doing the gonzo things a wizard can and wizards as adept at healing as clerics?

If we do, then what's the point of having fighters, clerics, wizards and rogues in the first place? D&D has never* operated like that! When it does, its a flaw in the system. Classes should define the archtype and if you don't think the fighter should be the best at fighting, you have an unreal expectation of D&D.

* Well, aside from Batman Wizards, CoDzilla, and early 4e. All of which I consider a bug, not a feature.

 

[pauljathome]

This preserves unique class feel for me. If you don't like it, don't play a classes based game.

In my D&D of choice (Pathfinder) classes are still very significant. The easiest way to build a skill monkey is still to go Rogue or Bard, the easiest way to build a melee fighter is still to go with Ftr or Barbarian, etc.

So I have no problem with a class based game as long as it has enough flexibility.

My problem with DndNext is that if I want a character who is a fighter who still knows as much about nature as any druid or a magic user who is the best scholar in the world then I just flat out cannot. The best person at ANY skill is a rogue and no matter how much I'm willing to invest in a skill my fighter or wizard just cannot compete. In Pathfinder, if I really, really try then I can make my bard or cleric almost as good a fighter as a fighter (not as good, but its reasonably close).

In Pathfinder (or 3.5, or 4.x to a slightly lesser extent) I can make all those concepts. I have to pay something (skill points, feats, magic, etc) but I can make that choice. Can't do that in DndNext.

Yeah, maybe the multiclass rules will let me. Or some other rules change. But, with the rules right now, the classes act far more as a straight jacket than I want them to be.

As I said, I won't be playing DndNext. For a game that is meant to be inclusive it has pretty much excluded my playing style. Maybe I'm an outlier (and that is fine) but I suspect that, in this way at least, I'm really not.

 

[pauljathome]

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Just a strong impression that their suggested equipment, backgrounds etc are often very non optimal. For example, suggesting a fighter takes Survivor. Or suggesting that a non battle cleric cares about Strength.

There were other more egregious examples that I noted on reading all the rules but I didn't write them all down

 

[triqui]

3) Lets totally go back to glass cannons. D4 hit points for wizards? With all that damage? No. I kind of like characters to live..

I would like to focus on this, as an example. You are not seeing the whole picture.

Except maybe at first level, 5e wizards survive better than pathfinder ones. Take a 12 CON 5th level wizard at PF. It has 5d6+5 hp. Let's face a CR 5 troll. It does 2x 1d6+5 claws, + 1d6+7 Rend, +1d8+5 bite. Now compare it to a 5th level wizard with 12 con in 5e, but keep in mind that a [b[6th level elite[/B] troll does 2x 1d6+2 claws and 1d8+4 bite. A CR 5 monster, like the Orog, does 1d12+3, or 1d12+5 with a penalty to attack.


PC are more glass cannon in Pathfinder, just because monsters damage output is bigger.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I agree with the OP. The playtest packet smells of "Real D&D" now (not sure what that literally smells like ).

This will be a great product IMO for getting new players in.

I also have gotten the impression that the playtest wiffs of classic D&D. I don't think the term 'Real' is exactly fair, but it's definitely there.

I also don't think that makes it any good for new players. Neither the nostalgic familiarity that appeals to the old-schoolers, nor the choice-rich modernity expected by early adopters, helps new players. What helps new players is accessibility. That means limited scope and complexity, at first, with a strong first play experience without any sense of being 'left out' or 'hazed,' and leading into a fuller picture of the game and the broader hobby with continued play.

 

[Mallus]

Neither the nostalgic familiarity that appeals to the old-schoolers, nor the choice-rich modernity expected by early adopters, helps new players.

The not-as-complicated and players-faster certainly doesn't hurt new players!

 

[Lwaxy]

What helps new players is accessibility. That means limited scope and complexity, at first, with a strong first play experience without any sense of being 'left out' or 'hazed,' and leading into a fuller picture of the game and the broader hobby with continued play.

I feel 5e is running there with large steps. Can#t get much simpler than this without getting into boring.