After DDXP, how are you feeling about D&En?

[Falling Icicle]

The silver standard is something I've long hoped for in D&D.

I like this as well. The news that magic items are no longer going to be an assumed part of the game's math also makes me pleased.

I'm also very excited about the prospect of themes flavoring classes.

I am very interested to see how this turns out as well. I am hoping it is like 2nd edition kits, but better. I hope that the warlord is one of these rather than a class.

Finally, I think they're really onto something with their skill system. It seems so simple; instead of calling for a 'thievery' or 'sleight of hand' check, you'd ask for a DEX check. Great, simplicity itself. Perhaps one of the characters is a rogue? On his sheet, there's a note: +2 when picking pockets. Or perhaps +2 when stealing. I love the idea that it can be something flexible; something broad, or something narrow. To me, this seems like simplicity itself.

On one hand, I like that ability scores are going to be more meaningful, and levels alot less. I've wanted to see that change for a long, long time. On the other hand, this is just too basic for me. I'm fine with having this as an option for people who want to keep their games simple, but it's far too simplistic for my tastes.

 

[Sammael]

On his sheet, there's a note: +2 when picking pockets. Or perhaps +2 when stealing. I love the idea that it can be something flexible; something broad, or something narrow. To me, this seems like simplicity itself.

Except that at 20th level, the list may look like this:

+2 when stealing
+2 when hiding
+2 when in urban areas
+2 when escaping bonds
+2 when climbing masonry walls
+2 to all checks when the target is unaware
+2 against bugbears
+2 against poison
+2 against shadow magic
+2 with dagger of ultimate doom
+2 if the moon is full (favor of the Moon Goddess)

Add to that beneficial magic boosts, bardic songs, circumstance modifiers... the bajillion little bonuses are impossible to add up in actual play.

 

[vagabundo]

I'm still excited as the playtesting comments have been pretty positive. Although some of the seminar stuff has been a little off for me.

4e will still be around and possibly supported so that's my backup. I'm pretty positive about the whole thing. Still excited.

"How will it end??"

 

[Number48]

I'm a little dizzy from turning around so much. Before XP, I was really gung-ho. Couldn't be more excited. Then after the first seminar I was so disappointed it threw me into a bad funk, I felt devastated. Now, after getting much more information from the latest seminar, I am back to feeling cautiously optimistic.

Themes? Well, I was voting for a breakdown to combat class + noncombat class + theme, so this could definitely be the right way forward. I just want the theme to be of the same importance as race and class.

My biggest concern was that 5E be a new edition. The first seminar left the impression that we were putting new tires on and a new stereo into 1E. That isn't worth a couple hundred bucks to me. But the new concepts with theme and open-ended skills have me intrigued. Very excited by a possibility of a D&D where your character needs all 6 ability scores no matter race, class and theme. That makes racial ability bonuses and whatnot not so limiting in regards to choices.

They really got to get a handle on these skills and saves, though. Open-ended and suited to the story is great, but ridiculously open-ended and subject to abuse is awful. I've played with people (none currently) that would be able to twist everything in such a way as to almost always use one ability score, which goes straight back to the problem of dump stats and makes it worse. I don't think they have it in there yet, but maybe they can suggest that skills and saves are usually associated with X, but a character with a good story/roleplaying reason can use Y, but can't change the roll more than, say, 3 times a session.

Open-ended skills that still require a roll but the DM can give advantage to good roleplaying? Good concept but dangerous ground. We can't marginalize shy people, or even the "spouse" player. In my game there are 3 married couples and another guy and 2 of the players are only kinda there. I would hate to penalize their actions. Still, handled the right way and I'm all behind it.

 

[Number48]

Except that at 20th level, the list may look like this:

+2 when stealing
+2 when hiding
+2 when in urban areas
+2 when escaping bonds
+2 when climbing masonry walls
+2 to all checks when the target is unaware
+2 against bugbears
+2 against poison
+2 against shadow magic
+2 with dagger of ultimate doom
+2 if the moon is full (favor of the Moon Goddess)

Add to that beneficial magic boosts, bardic songs, circumstance modifiers... the bajillion little bonuses are impossible to add up in actual play.

Yes, but they addressed that. You simply wouldn't roll. If you are that good at something compared to the relative difficulty, you simply succeed. I think that's a WONDERFUL innovation for people who want to specialize in something other than murder. After all, if I'm the top thief in the world at 20th level, I should expect to not to have to roll unless doing something truly outrageous which would be impossible to attempt a roll for a lesser thief.

 

[Aegeri]

Can't say I am that happy with what I am reading about 5E in the slightest. Just hope it doesn't turn out to be a bunch of stuff cobbled together, without a solid design direction out of a need to "please" everyone. Definitely unhappy about how Wizards has handled 4E over the past few years and how this is going. Probably not going to buy anything from Wizards again unless this is exceptional.

 

[avin]

And can we stop drowning babies? (...) this is a figure of speech that could be easily replaced with something more tasteful.

Like "molested my weasel" or something.

Poor mammal...

 

[Sammael]

Yes, but they addressed that. You simply wouldn't roll. If you are that good at something compared to the relative difficulty, you simply succeed. I think that's a WONDERFUL innovation for people who want to specialize in something other than murder. After all, if I'm the top thief in the world at 20th level, I should expect to not to have to roll unless doing something truly outrageous which would be impossible to attempt a roll for a lesser thief.

Preamble: I don't mind skipping rolls - both in combat and out of combat - when it makes sense.

However... who decides what's outrageous? You? The DM? The whole party?

What if you're not a level 20 thief, but a level 10 thief/level 10 wizard? Should you be able to do the same outrageous stuff as the level 20 thief? Half as outrageous?

Without a more solid skill system, the whole thing is way too arbitrary for my taste. The apprentice/journeyman/expert/master system proposed in L&L a few months ago made a whole lot more sense.

 

[Yora]

Some unexpected things, like six saving throws, and some potentially unfortunate, like vancian casting for wizards and clerics (but if we get other variants for them, that's fine), but overall, it's looking quite good.

 

[Number48]

Preamble: I don't mind skipping rolls - both in combat and out of combat - when it makes sense.

However... who decides what's outrageous? You? The DM? The whole party?

What if you're not a level 20 thief, but a level 10 thief/level 10 wizard? Should you be able to do the same outrageous stuff as the level 20 thief? Half as outrageous?

Without a more solid skill system, the whole thing is way too arbitrary for my taste. The apprentice/journeyman/expert/master system proposed in L&L a few months ago made a whole lot more sense.

Yeah, that IS pretty much the system, I think. They didn't out and out say it, but it seems heavily implied.