D&D 5E And now for something positive

[Ellington]

I haven't been here in a while, but after reading the latest playtest batch and absolutely loving it I just wanted to see what you guys thought. I notice a lot of people don't like it at all and with a playerbase as divided as D&D's, that's understandable.

As for me, I'm thrilled. While not perfect, the direction this step took us was exactly where I wanted D&D Next to go. I love how customizable every single character is without the system being messy. The terms are familiar and easy to pick up and seem easier to explain to people than the ones used in 3.5/Pathfinder (the systems I've used thus far, I can't speak for 4E). The new classes are very well done, the ranger being a particular favorite (I haven't seen it handled this well, ever).

The only things I'm a bit iffy over are some of the numbers (3d10 extra damage for a paladin at level 1? Yikes!) and some of the clunky fighter mechanics, but otherwise this is looking great. I'm very excited to see how this ends up and I hope we're reaching equilibrium in mechanics which have been changing a lot, but as of right now are just right for me.

Bring on some more!

 

[Salamandyr]

I too worry about some of the numbers, but I like a lot of the elements. After all the screaming and carrying on I made about the paladin and the ranger, I wound up really liking what they did. And the favored enemy mechanic makes me go "OMG! How come we never thought of it before!".

Let me tell you about something I hate. I hate presumptive incompetence. This is the principle in a game where, unless your character is built to do something, you can't do it, or is presumptively really bad at it. Most previous versions of D&D lived on this trope...I found it most frustrating in 3rd edition, where they pretended you could do anything, but you soon found out that was a lie.

I want a game where my character has a good shot at pulling off whatever I want to try, while having an excellentshot at doing the things my character is built to do. Next really seems close to hitting that mark. It's not quite there, but it's pretty darn close.

 

[kerleth]

I've voiced my complaints about rogue and fighter elsewhere. I don't agree with the decision to remove disarm and push from the general combat options for all characters.
THAT SAID: Dnd next, in general seems incredibly promising. Druid looks pretty awesome. I love the general design philosophy. I agree that the ranger looks to be headed in the right direction. Advantage, bounded math, specialties, are all cool ideas, but they have been around for previous packets. Deadly strike seems like it would work, though I fear how it will interact with multiclassing. I would prefer a more unified scaling mechanic. Personally I thought the Last packet was almost all win, this one has some things to be excited about and some disappointments. Still psyched about next in general though.

 

[Wulfgar76]

My post from the 'New Packet Is Here' thread:

While some things strike me as overly complex, a step backwards, or dumb or irritating in some way, those might just be matters of personal taste. I really don't like the Ranger getting pushed so hard towards spellcasting as his primary schtick, but guess what, I can live with that because lots of other stuff is hitting all the right notes.

Taken as a whole, this playtest packet, and the developing D&DNext game, for me is a MASSIVE evolution in the RIGHT direction. I played 3rd/3.5 for its entire run - and gave up in frustration. I played 4th for its entire life - and gave up in frustration. I look at D&D Next like a rough-stone-rolling, yes its got a few jagged edges and rough spots, but as it rolls along those flaws are getting smoothed out – and it is without question rolling in the right direction.

In my opinion, this still-unfinished game is VASTLY better than 3rd and 4th edition. It appears the worst of those editions has been cut out, leaving a base chassis and an efficient engine that runs pretty damn well. My group is already converted and will never go back to the horrors of editions past. Each of us has our individual nitpicks and irks, but we also recognize those things are probably personal preferences, and it's refreshing to be playing a game that seems to be firing on all cylinders.

Beginning with Bounded Accuracy, to advantage/disadvantage, to the approach they're taking with the Fighter, many of the concepts and innovations of this new D&D game have been design GRAND SLAMS that inject pure oxygen into the toxic air of 3e/4e. The knee-jerk histrionics and infantile whining I'm hearing over this packet is pretty annoying, but not completely unexpected. So I figured I'd add one "thumbs up" vote to the chorus of un-constructive criticism I'm hearing.

Oh, and by the way, this Paladin, my favorite D&D class, oozes awesome.

 

[fjw70]

II found it most frustrating in 3rd edition, where they pretended you could do anything, but you soon found out that was a lie.

Yes, here is an exchange I had with the DM when I first started playing 3.5 (after having played 1e 20 years earlier).

We were hunting goblins and my character hears wolves off in the distance.

Me: Goblins often work with wolves why don't we go in that direction.
DM: Your character doesn't know that.
Me: It's not common knowlegde in the FR?
DM: No. You need to make a Knowledge (Nature) check to see if your character knows it.
Me: Okay, what do I need to roll?
DM: You aren't trained in Knowledge (Nature) so you can't roll.
Me: You mean that my character has 0% chance of knowing anything about the natural world?
DM: Yep.
Me: Okay :rolls eyes:

 

[Roland55]

It's still "early days."

Therefore, I refuse to be brought down ... even by my own irritations.

I remain steadfastly optimistic.

 

[MarkB]

Yes, here is an exchange I had with the DM when I first started playing 3.5 (after having played 1e 20 years earlier).

We were hunting goblins and my character hears wolves off in the distance.

Me: Goblins often work with wolves why don't we go in that direction.
DM: Your character doesn't know that.
Me: It's not common knowlegde in the FR?
DM: No. You need to make a Knowledge (Nature) check to see if your character knows it.
Me: Okay, what do I need to roll?
DM: You aren't trained in Knowledge (Nature) so you can't roll.
Me: You mean that my character has 0% chance of knowing anything about the natural world?
DM: Yep.
Me: Okay :rolls eyes:

To be fair, that's not quite an accurate representation of the rules - untrained characters can make checks for "common knowledge", which is anything up to a DC 10 check. But that aside, the 3.5e skill system certainly was frustrating that way.

 

[Salamandyr]

3.5 had the mistake of wanting to be a skill system and not wanting to be a skill system at the same time. It's something I worry about with Next right now. The recommended DC's (10 for easy, 15, for moderate, and 20 for hard) are such that even for things your character is good at (high attribute score) without the skill die, the odds are often not in your favor (and even then with all the bits of randomness...). This is my biggest worry about the system, since it colors everything else. But it's an easy thing to fix.

 

[VinylTap]

If anyone thinks the final product is going to look even remotely similar to the current play test package they are vastly mistaken.

I'm glad they're still tinkering with the rogues backstab mechanic, even though its not perfect yet.

I'm more than happy with the change to using two light weapons.

I'm really glad they're not trying to force the fighter to take a significant DPS hit for choosing to use maneuvers.

The exploration rules look like a great start to creating a system to address a part of the game that a lot of new DMs struggle with.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

3.5 had the mistake of wanting to be a skill system and not wanting to be a skill system at the same time. It's something I worry about with Next right now. The recommended DC's (10 for easy, 15, for moderate, and 20 for hard) are such that even for things your character is good at (high attribute score) without the skill die, the odds are often not in your favor (and even then with all the bits of randomness...). This is my biggest worry about the system, since it colors everything else. But it's an easy thing to fix.

Yeah. I think it's a mistake to move away from the DC numbers used in the previous packets. Sure, increments of five are easy to work with, but they simply aren't granular enough for bounded accuracy.