hemera
Explorer
That is something that I would be down with. Vancian at the core, so it is true to most past editions but a modular approach for those who want a little something extra. (maybe at-wills, meta magic what have you)
D&D Next (5E) Updates, Pax East, and a Poll
That is something that I would be down with. Vancian at the core, so it is true to most past editions but a modular approach for those who want a little something extra. (maybe at-wills, meta magic what have you)
keterys
First Post
I believe that Vancian _has_ to be an option in the game, for D&D Next to succeed on its goal...
But I strongly believe that it should not be the default option for the initial very core classes, and should be in its own optional module (much like I imagine 4E powers will be, and we know miniature play will be). A new player should not have to deal with Vancian in order to play what they want to play - it's a style that doesn't match any modern literature, game, etc - not really even in D&D literature they might be used to nowadays. It also has inherent complexities that I feel are not good for introduction, and it eats up a lot of space.
I think I'd suggest that a Mage or Sorcerer option that didn't use it as part of the easier intro classes, and cleric didn't at all, but the Wizard and Priest classes did.
But I strongly believe that it should not be the default option for the initial very core classes, and should be in its own optional module (much like I imagine 4E powers will be, and we know miniature play will be). A new player should not have to deal with Vancian in order to play what they want to play - it's a style that doesn't match any modern literature, game, etc - not really even in D&D literature they might be used to nowadays. It also has inherent complexities that I feel are not good for introduction, and it eats up a lot of space.
I think I'd suggest that a Mage or Sorcerer option that didn't use it as part of the easier intro classes, and cleric didn't at all, but the Wizard and Priest classes did.
Alphastream
Adventurer
To be fair, that summary was probably written with the idea that the Open Playtest would be out at the time (perhaps right after PAX East, which could still happen). The summary could be wrong, but if so is likely because they are receiving really valuable feedback through their current playtest mechanics, in turn driving them to make changes before the larger playtest begins.
I'm on an NDA, so I can't share what I would love to share about the playtest methodology (and I probably will never be able to do so, since their playtest methods are unlikely to ever be public knowledge). But, I don't recommend jumping to the conclusion that the methodology is lacking compared to Paizo's or any other RPG company's playtest.
Keep in mind several things: A) There are non-public components to the playtest that are important. B) They received very good feedback from the NDA but open to anyone playtest at DDXP. C) They are working on a scale that is substantially different than that of other companies and with far bigger goals. D) Even when Wizards' open non-NDA playtest initiates, it will not be a 1:1 match of what Paizo or any other company has done previously.
I'm a big fan of playtesting. I like various aspects of what Paizo did, and I like what has been done by other companies (I have and do playtest for several companies). Playtest approaches should vary based on the product, the goals, the audience, and many other factors. This makes it very difficult to say one approach is superior to another. To really do so you have to know a lot about the inner workings of an RPG company - as well as of other companies so you can run a comparison.
My advice: enjoy all the games you can and enjoy the diversity amongst RPG companies. If you have the means to go to PAX East, do so. It will be a fantastic opportunity to be part of the process that shapes D&D (and which will likely influence all RPG companies in the future).
I see your point, but the whole purpose of an open playtest is to open it up to the community and allow them to experience the game and give their feedback. Opening it up to only convention goers who must sign an NDA is not open; it's just a standard playtest. It feels like WotC is trying to capitalize on the success of other company's playtests without actually doing the work of being open. I respect that they want feedback, but to call it open demeans the hard work of the companies who really did the work of doing open playtests and actively engaging their communities in a back and forth that produces a product that is connected with the fans.
What Wizards creates with 5e MAY be wonderful, but so far it's not an "open playtest" and calling it such smacks of dishonesty.
Gaming Tonic
First Post
I am on an NDA as well so I will not elaborate on the specifics of that but the playtest will be open once WotC hammers out a few of the basic details. Those who have seen the playtest have reported (myself included) on the rough stage and how early on the edition is. If they released what I saw in December the fans would be in an uproar. If they released what was at the DDXP same reaction. Several posts I have read had the NDA's signed at the DDXP expiring in May. I do not know if that is true but if it is your answer to when open playtest is probably in those details. The announcement was less than three months ago that anything at all existed. I am sure the open playtest is right around the corner.
They've made it clear that the open playtests are to come. They aren't calling the playtests so far open playtests; the open playtests begin some time in Spring (which is any time until mid-June).
The above descriptions may have been written at a time when open playtests were expected to have started by now. They're just an old description I had lying around. So if it's anyone's fault, it's probably mine for reusing the description.
There's no dishonesty going on.
tomBitonti
Adventurer
Agh such constraining language use ...
"Should the cleric and wizard use Vancian Magic as core?"
Is limiting.
I can envision a range of options:
1) Only Vancian
2) A mix of Vancian and non-Vancian
3) Only non-Vancian (sorcerer model)
4) Only non-Vancian (power point model)
5) Only non-Vancian (4E daily/encounter/at will model)
If the new edition is to be modular, wouldn't the design automatically provide all of those options?
These seem much more useful questions:
"Should a single casting model (e.g., Vancian) be presented as core, with other models (e.g., the sorcerer model) be presented as options?"
"Should different casting models (Vancian vs. Sorcerer vs. Power Points vs. 4E) be given equal footing as core game features?"
"If a single casting model is to be made core, should that model be Vancian?"
And why limit to cleric and wizard? 4E doesn't seem to have caster (from a pure sense; how does 4E map into this question? Is the use of cleric and wizard intended, as in, should these classes be mapped into their 3E flavors, with an expectation of other casting classes (Sorcerer, Psion) existing that use other models?
TomB
"Should the cleric and wizard use Vancian Magic as core?"
Is limiting.
I can envision a range of options:
1) Only Vancian
2) A mix of Vancian and non-Vancian
3) Only non-Vancian (sorcerer model)
4) Only non-Vancian (power point model)
5) Only non-Vancian (4E daily/encounter/at will model)
If the new edition is to be modular, wouldn't the design automatically provide all of those options?
These seem much more useful questions:
"Should a single casting model (e.g., Vancian) be presented as core, with other models (e.g., the sorcerer model) be presented as options?"
"Should different casting models (Vancian vs. Sorcerer vs. Power Points vs. 4E) be given equal footing as core game features?"
"If a single casting model is to be made core, should that model be Vancian?"
And why limit to cleric and wizard? 4E doesn't seem to have caster (from a pure sense; how does 4E map into this question? Is the use of cleric and wizard intended, as in, should these classes be mapped into their 3E flavors, with an expectation of other casting classes (Sorcerer, Psion) existing that use other models?
TomB
qstor
Adventurer
I'm fine with that. Pathfinder does it. It works for wizards that have exhausted all their spells. I'm not fine with the encounters, at-wills and dailies etc.
Mike
Similar Threads
