D&D is not a supers game.

[Neonchameleon]

4) Make the skills the main focus of the Rogue Class - not just the 'striker' role (although, admittedly, this is much better in D&D Next than it was in 4th Ed). I'm not asking for big long lists (definitely not!), but what about being able to pickpocket again?

You mean that this is probably worse in D&D next than it was in 4th ed? D&D next where Sneak Attack scales at a rate of 1d6 per level as opposed to 2d6 at first, 3d6 at 11th, and 5d6 at 21st? And it's six skills all (although from everything I've seen the 4e rogue has an easier time getting more skills) - but the 4e skills are broader. One of the rogue skills is called Thievery - that skill covers disarming traps, picking locks, and picking pockets - that's a very comfortable two skills in one (at +5 vs +3 with a minimum of 10, granted - there's not much difference there). And then one gets tricks, the other gets utility powers.

And let's not get into the thief... 4e thieves are more skills-focussed than 4e rogues. A seventh skill (again broad), some skills support, and all the advantages of the 4e rogue.

So at present I'd call the classic 4e rogue slightly more of a skill monkey (and slightly less of a striker) than the 5e rogue. The 3e rogue on the other hand just looks on in envy as they need to spend separate skill slots on a lot of things.

The 4th edition rogue might be called a striker. But it's more skills focussed and less striking focussed than either the 3rd ed rogue or the D&D next rogue.

Also, incidentally, are they going to go back to adding 1/2 Level to Skill checks and Attacks?

No.

At what point did earning experience and power thereof become the same thing as 'earning' enjoyment?.

See the different types of players. Different people enjoy different things.

 

[Argyle King]

Agreed. I'm no fan of high-lethality low-level games, but 4E pushed it a bit too far for my tastes.

What I find interesting is that I am a fan of that style of game; yet I still agree with you. There's a general ballpark area of style that I prefer; I'm willing to make concessions to slide my scale one way or the other. After all, it is a group game, so I understand that my desires may not match the desires of others.

That all being said, I agree that 4E pushed some things too far. I still have and do enjoy 4E, but I do not feel the mechanics of the game are a good fit for the implied setting nor many D&D settings. (Oddly, I found 4E's Forgotten Realms to be a very good fit; I'm aware I'm in the minority.) I had my most fun with D&D when I ran it as a sort of psuedo-sci-fi game and completely embraced the gonzo nature of the rules and pushing the envelope. Still, while I had a blast with that game, it's not my preferred style of play; doing it from 1-30 gets old after the first few times.

One thing I'd like to note is that I do not feel harsher/more realistic combat necessarily translates into lethality. Taking damage in GURPS means something far more tangible than taking damage in D&D 4th Edition; however, GURPS gives me (as the defender) the option to dodge, parry, and/or block rather than just standing there and getting hit. Now, I would say it is more lethal than the current edition of D&D right out of the box, but I would also say that I would have to crank some of the optional dials up to mythic fantasy for a more accurate side-by-side comparison.

Speaking of 'mythic fantasy,' I think that might be what is meant by the 'superhero comments.' If fantasy occupies the middle ground between myth and history, D&D 4th Edition is (I think) much closer to myth.

 

[IanB]

The whole point of having a playtest is to provide feedback. We have no idea how the game will change after each stage of the playtest, but if we don't speak up about the aspects of the game we see in front of us, then nobody will hear our concerns. My concern is that 1st level characters are too powered up, and consequently it doesn't feel like D&D should to me (at lower levels). Entirely legitimate and honest feedback.

You didn't answer my question, though; why is it not OK for the thing you want to just be an option? "Make my way the default or I refuse to buy this" doesn't feel like feedback, it feels like an ultimatum.

 

[Celestian]

So D&D is really only 4 levels. From level 6 when you stop being a no name smuck to level 10 when the game breaks down and you are encouraged to retire.

I do not know about your games but I played into the upper teens and some of them in made it to 20 in AD&D 1e. Game did not break down... infact it was brilliantly fun.

Every 2e supplement would like to have a word with you. As would NWPs.

NWP are now a complex background? Colour me surprised.

Turn that question back on yourself.

Make not having the kicker an option, leave the at-wills alone, and then provide options for people who want to play differently than the core assumptions.

Neither way is correct, but I dislike when people assume what they want is both the correct thing and the most popular.

The way I suggested allows both you and I have our way. Your way does not. Has nothing to do with most popular. It is about modularity and options.

 

[Herschel]

Agreed. I'm no fan of high-lethality low-level games, but 4E pushed it a bit too far for my tastes.

I find this kind of funny though as the first session of a 4E campaign I ran was Keep on the Shadowfell and I had a TPK before they ever got to the keep in the kobold ambush. (Rogue tried to scout and botched his hide roll, dead, Warlord was in front during attack, went down immediately, rest of party followed suit.)

Then I had a TPK getting in to the keep, and Irontooth almost caused another. It was a crash course in tactical play for the players who had previously played in my 1E/2E hybrid game.

 

[Fifth Element]

I find this kind of funny though as the first session of a 4E campaign I ran was Keep on the Shadowfell and I had a TPK before they ever got to the keep in the kobold ambush.

By no means am I trying to suggest that TPKs are impossible in 4E, or that character death is necessarily rare. But the balance is certainly different in 4E than in any earlier edition.

 

[Campbell]

Kits more so than NWP were a direct validation of elaborate PC background. The Complete Books of X were certainly something I'd call fairly mainstream. Some even see use in the biweekly 2e/1e game I play in.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Is the only valid customer feedback the one you agree with? If the D&D game is to my liking, I am as likely to buy it as anyone here. The fact that anybody is spending time playtesting is enough to warrant the validity of their feedback.

Over the course of D&D's history we can see a clear trend away from the Gygaxian high lethality game presented in OD&D. Even 1e increases hit dice, and lowers the death threshold into the negatives.

And Mr. Gygax also moved away from the high lethality of his games by starting his players at 3rd level. I don't know from experience, but my understanding that what Mr. Gygax played at his table was considerably different-- and much higher-powered-- than what he wrote in his rulebooks. It seems that many of his most fervent admirers would not have cared to have played at his table.

DDN seems to be paring it back a little, which I'm fine with. My ideal would be starting with HP in the teens, maybe CON score as starting HP. I just see starting HP for 1st level characters in the 30s and it's too high for me.

Perhaps 10 + half-HD + Constitution modifier? Gives you a range between 10 for 8 CON Wizard and 20 for 20 CON Fighter. It's tempting to use Constitution score in place of the ten... but there's a twelve point variance in starting Con values.

And then each level is half-HD + Constitution modifier because seriously, of all the things you have to roll in D&D, hit points are the worst. And Constitution should be important.

If they're going to stick with rolling hit dice, because they hate me, and don't want to add Constitution modifier (to avoid inflation)... they should have you roll 1 HD + 1 HD per point of Constitution bonus and take the best roll. If you have a negative Constitution modifier... welcome to the wonderful world of Disadvantage.

 

[TrippyHippy]

You didn't answer my question, though; why is it not OK for the thing you want to just be an option? "Make my way the default or I refuse to buy this" doesn't feel like feedback, it feels like an ultimatum.

Having a bunch of options can lead to problems if all they amount to is fudging the issues.

Moreover, I am simply being honest in my feedback. If I don't like the game when it is finally made, for whatever reason, of course I won't buy it. That's not an ultamatum, is a customer's perogative. For me, a critical issue is whether you can actually start 1st level with something equitable to the power levels of previous editions - it's part of my decision making as to whether I would buy it or not. I'm merely expressing this view as part of the playtest. If other people want to say different, then it is up to them.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Having a bunch of options can lead to problems if all they amount to is fundging the issues.

Moreover, I am simply being honest in my feedback. If I don't like the game when it is finally made, for whatever reason, of course I won't buy it. That's not an ultamatum, is a customer's perogative. For me, a critical issue is whether you can actually start 1st level with something equitable to the power levels of previous editions - it's part of my decision making as to whether I would buy it or not. I'm merely expressing this view as part of the playtest. If other people want to say different, then it is up to them.

Since D&D Next is the "unity" edition, with lots of options. Prepare for lots of options. If options are not your thing fine. It's your prerogative to wait for the old school/grognard module or not. It's my prerogative not to want to play the "dirt farmer" gone adventerin' RPG. I am expressing my need for the game NOT to be a bunch of commoners with pitch-forks seeking copper pieces.

We need to playtest what we have received, not what we hoped for. I am waiting for the tactical module they promised, so far the rules are way to simplistic, for myself.