D&D 5E D&D Next Playtest Readthrough: Eh, It’s OK

[Walking Dad]

This readthrough opinion would be much more interesting without the many 4e references. It also shows an incomplete understanding of the last D&D edition rules.

In short it is: reminds me of 4e -> bad
reminds me of 3e -> fine

Because of it, it is missing the obvious poor performance of medium and higher armor, for example, nor does it look much into any detail.

Better get the playtest yourself and try it out, people!

 

[Zaphling]

and it is not for you to say that 4e was corrupt. It did the DM's job into an easier one, much more spoil the DM with preparations. Monster stat blocks are better unlike 3e. DM preparation and monsters in 3e was so hard to handle. U had to flip to so many books, especially with spells. Do you want me to elaborate more?

 

[slobster]

and it is not for you to say that 4e was corrupt. It did the DM's job into an easier one, much more spoil the DM with preparations. Monster stat blocks are better unlike 3e. DM preparation and monsters in 3e was so hard to handle. U had to flip to so many books, especially with spells. Do you want me to elaborate more?

No, thank you. This isn't the place for edition warring. I have some sympathy here, because I think the OP used inflammatory language where it wasn't called for. But the best way to deal with such things is ignore them, and let the haters hate.

[EDIT] The time is long past when someone's opinion on their favorite or their most hated edition was going to be changed by discussions such as these. [/EDIT]

 

[mxyzplk]

No, thank you. This isn't the place for edition warring. I have some sympathy here, because I think the OP used inflammatory language where it wasn't called for. But the best way to deal with such things is ignore them, and let the haters hate.

I think it's valuable to know where a reviewer is coming from. So I wanted to make it clear I don't like 4e's approach, because it's certainly fair for you to disagree with my 5e conclusions if you do like 4e's approach.

Also, part of the clear point of this edition is to bring in those, like me, alienated by 4e, so though you may not want to hear that viewpoint, I suspect WotC does.

 

[Walking Dad]

I thought it was to unite all editions, not just ignore 4e to bring back the 3e crowd.

I want to hear your viewpoint, but at least some addition of 4e examples were unnecessary and incorrect:

On the plus side, all the powers so far seem to make sense- the fighter’s powers aren’t weird pseudo arcane stuff like in 4e.

...

Not just three 4 hour long setpiece battles like 4e does, but a proper module, looks like it’ll play like any other D&D at first glance.

Also the "NPCs should work like PCs" was a 3e innovation. 4e is actually more in line with previous edition than 3e at that point. You made it sound the other way around.

 

[The Little Raven]

I think it's valuable to know where a reviewer is coming from. So I wanted to make it clear I don't like 4e's approach, because it's certainly fair for you to disagree with my 5e conclusions if you do like 4e's approach.

Also, part of the clear point of this edition is to bring in those, like me, alienated by 4e, so though you may not want to hear that viewpoint, I suspect WotC does.

While you and I are basically diametrically opposed in terms of what we want, and what we don't like, I absolutely want you to have equal input into the process. WotC ran their mouths about how this game could basically bring you and I to the same table, and it's their job to reconcile our extremely different wishes.

 

[RangerWickett]

It's fine to have a negative opinion of a ruleset. Just please, don't be rude to other posters because of your or their preferences of ruleset. That said, I think it's much more effective to say, "I don't like this because it does X, Y, or Z to my game," instead of "because it reminds me of xth edition."

 

[slobster]

I think it's valuable to know where a reviewer is coming from. So I wanted to make it clear I don't like 4e's approach, because it's certainly fair for you to disagree with my 5e conclusions if you do like 4e's approach.

Also, part of the clear point of this edition is to bring in those, like me, alienated by 4e, so though you may not want to hear that viewpoint, I suspect WotC does.

No, that's fine. I don't mind someone stating that they didn't like edition Y. If they want to discuss what they didn't like about that edition, I'm game. Well ok truthfully I get tired of it, but at least it's a valid thing to discuss, even if I've seen it discussed to death at this point.

But using language like "rules from edition Y are corrupting the 5E playtest" isn't just airing an opinion, it's picking a fight, in my opinion. So I try to stay clear of that . . . and now I've gone and done the opposite. D'oh. Color me hypocritical.

 

[mxyzplk]

Anybody going to discuss the actual content of the game or my thoughts on it, or just circle around the meta drain?

 

[Steely_Dan]

-Anyone who can say with a straight face “Want to play a game with us? OK, read this 576 page book first” deserves a punch in the mouth.

-the fighter’s powers aren’t weird pseudo arcane stuff like in 4e.

-I worry especially from the character sheets that there’s a bunch more junk they just haven’t shown us yet that’ll take it to 3.5e levels of law degree gaming.

All these lines killed me, I really enjoyed reading your post, I am totally serious, I dig where you're coming from.