Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
It smells good, but isn't fully baked yet. Keep it in the oven a while longer.
Uniting the Editions: How well did this playtest packet do?
- Thread starter ferratus
- Start date
Raith5
Adventurer
It is hard to say at this early stage that I am willing to move on to this edition. I think some aspects of 4 th Ed - like the static defenses mechanism are far more elegant than Ddn saves. But backgrounds, specialization etc are a clear innovation.
One thing that has become clear to me is that there needs to be far greater integration of the skill system and the spell system. I just think it does not make sense to have low level spells override skills. Charm should give a bonus to diplomacy skill checks for instance. It just seems to be well established in d and d editions that skills and spells are not to be designed with each other in mind and thus appears to me to be very clunky.
One thing that has become clear to me is that there needs to be far greater integration of the skill system and the spell system. I just think it does not make sense to have low level spells override skills. Charm should give a bonus to diplomacy skill checks for instance. It just seems to be well established in d and d editions that skills and spells are not to be designed with each other in mind and thus appears to me to be very clunky.
Mostly just a bump to rise above innerdude's thread about how the future is hopeless, but after 60 vote it is good to take stock of what we have.
The old school players are not grumbling much, which surprises me. While it feels to me like a cleaned up 2e, there is still a huge amount of new-school mechanics here, from fighter maneuvers to 4e conditions. Perhaps OSR players aren't as resistant to change and new mechanics as we tend to stereotype them. Blogs like Grognardia tend to state that the OSR isn't just about nostalgia, and this poll result tends to back them up.
3e respondents are about 2/3 positive about the new edition. I have an intuition that a lot of Pathfinder's appeal lies in the relationship between Paizo and is customers and the work culture of Paizo itself, which is why I phrased the poll question that way. I hate Pathfinder, Golarion and their adventures, but I love Paizo the company. My spare money these days is going to their flip mats and singles of their miniatures (thanks for making a medusa mini without arrows!)
4e respondents seem to be the most negative, which is surprising given the amount of 4e mechanics that are being retained. Some of it, I imagine, is that WotC has not been as good to their customers as Paizo. I was ready to move on from 4e, but many people weren't, and being dropped despite their investments after 3 years has to sting. I imagine the release of the warlock and sorcerer are attempts to soothe feelings with the 4e fans, and WotC could do more to mollify their most loyal customers by releasing a miniatures and tactical combat rules module quicker rather than later.
But 60% of poll respondents or so are onside with this playtest, and further 10% are still interested, so it seems their gamble is working for the most part. If they can get 75% of fans to at least be open to playing the new game, then they will have recovered nicely. If they manage to restore the old editions as viable revenue streams through electronic releases, they will go back to being the leader in the Tabletop RPG market.
The old school players are not grumbling much, which surprises me. While it feels to me like a cleaned up 2e, there is still a huge amount of new-school mechanics here, from fighter maneuvers to 4e conditions. Perhaps OSR players aren't as resistant to change and new mechanics as we tend to stereotype them. Blogs like Grognardia tend to state that the OSR isn't just about nostalgia, and this poll result tends to back them up.
3e respondents are about 2/3 positive about the new edition. I have an intuition that a lot of Pathfinder's appeal lies in the relationship between Paizo and is customers and the work culture of Paizo itself, which is why I phrased the poll question that way. I hate Pathfinder, Golarion and their adventures, but I love Paizo the company. My spare money these days is going to their flip mats and singles of their miniatures (thanks for making a medusa mini without arrows!)
4e respondents seem to be the most negative, which is surprising given the amount of 4e mechanics that are being retained. Some of it, I imagine, is that WotC has not been as good to their customers as Paizo. I was ready to move on from 4e, but many people weren't, and being dropped despite their investments after 3 years has to sting. I imagine the release of the warlock and sorcerer are attempts to soothe feelings with the 4e fans, and WotC could do more to mollify their most loyal customers by releasing a miniatures and tactical combat rules module quicker rather than later.
But 60% of poll respondents or so are onside with this playtest, and further 10% are still interested, so it seems their gamble is working for the most part. If they can get 75% of fans to at least be open to playing the new game, then they will have recovered nicely. If they manage to restore the old editions as viable revenue streams through electronic releases, they will go back to being the leader in the Tabletop RPG market.
TrippyHippy
Hero
I'd probably decribe myself as closest to the 'old school' mentality, but I'm not adverse to having interesting developments in the rules or whatnot. I just don't want to be straightjacketed into playing a game that I don't recognise as D&D.
I guess there will always be aspects of the rules that people will agree or disagree with, but as long as it lets me play a fantasy game in my imagination (as opposed to following figures on the table top) I will be interested.
I guess there will always be aspects of the rules that people will agree or disagree with, but as long as it lets me play a fantasy game in my imagination (as opposed to following figures on the table top) I will be interested.
I might be able to answer this one. I am not "old school", but I am old.
"Old School" is not directly about the mechanics. The mechanics are only important in that they should not get in the way. I think 5E spell descriptions so far are a good example of that. They inspire creative thinking more than they lock things down. This can be a blessing or a curse depending on play style and who's at the table. But for "old school" this is generally a more supportive design.
Maybe I can help add a bit here too. When I saw 4E, I saw "This is a game I want to DM!" I wouldn't even consider DMing a game of Next in it's current state. Monsters are dull and encounter-building is more or less "you're on your own!" At least in comparison to what we had before.
In short, I think WotC could do more to appeal to DMs coming from 4th edition in addition to players, because I feel like 4E made a very large effort to make things easier on (and more fun for) the Dungeon Master but DnD Next has taken none of these lessons to heart, at least at this stage of the playtest.
Someone
Adventurer
The mechanics retained are just window dressing or just name only. 5e doesn't retain any of 4e's main strengths (specially combat) and the core philosophy is the opposite; multiply mechanics instead of having a coherent one, regress to old mechancis instead of moving it forward.
TrippyHippy
Hero
4E fans are the most recent, and arguably feel they have the most to lose therefore.
Texicles
First Post
This is, I think, going to be a pretty big deal for the 4e fans (myself included). The sooner they can get something out that shows the potential for solid tactical, gridded combat, the sooner they will start winning over 4e players en masse.
Winning over the 4e DMs is a matter of getting encounter design tools up to snuff.
The 4e fan in me is eagerly awaiting some of these things. The 2e fan in me...
Similar Threads
