Does DDN do it better?

[MrBauxite]

I personally really like how everything is toned down - so your best fighter currently only getting a base +5 to hit? Yes! No more maths for the sake of maths is a good thing I say!

Also my group enjoyed the concept of martial damage dice (so a fighter/rogue and higher level cleric get die per level) that you can spend for extra damage, to use feats etc that when Wizards removed them in the latest package we carried on using them.

 

[billd91]

Generally speaking, I want simplicity, flexibility and tradition. Any lack of these beyond a certain threshold, and I have a problem: if it's not simple I just can't afford to play it; if it's not flexible I don't see myself playing it more than a bunch of evenings; if it's not traditional then I have no reason to prefer it over any other RPG. 5e is quite ok with the 1st and 3ed, and definitely doing a good job with the 2nd.

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of potential with 5e too. PF is my favorite D&D flavor, with 2e my 2nd favorite. 5e could work its way in close to those two.

 

[howandwhy99]

Does DDN do it better?

Unfortunately, it doesn't even do the most basic act my game does throughout every moment of play. But I'm thinking that's okay. The designers have made it clear they are sticking with their game design philosophy and that's it. However, they are doing things that no one's bothered to do in decades, so D&DN is a long, long way from a bad endeavor. They are not only resupplying old, functional materials again, they are going to be publishing modular systems, campaign setting, and adventures that can all be converted. It's *almost* like having the game back in print. Plus they'll have their own Metric Standard for stats, which means A LOT easier conversion of all published materials to earlier games anyways.

In this way I don't have to be big fan of the final product to be a fan of what they're doing overall. And maybe it'll be fun to play in too if that's what someone else is running?

 

[SirAntoine]

Unfortunately, it doesn't even do the most basic act my game does throughout every moment of play. But I'm thinking that's okay. The designers have made it clear they are sticking with their game design philosophy and that's it. However, they are doing things that no one's bothered to do in decades, so D&DN is a long, long way from a bad endeavor. They are not only resupplying old, functional materials again, they are going to be publishing modular systems, campaign setting, and adventures that can all be converted. It's *almost* like having the game back in print. Plus they'll have their own Metric Standard for stats, which means A LOT easier conversion of all published materials to earlier games anyways.

In this way I don't have to be big fan of the final product to be a fan of what they're doing overall. And maybe it'll be fun to play in too if that's what someone else is running?

Well said.

 

[Raith5]

Just wondering. I haven't playtested yet, but I am intrigued about some of the stuff I'm reading.

Is it unfair to ask this? Is 5th ed doing the things your preferred edition(s) did better? Is it addressing the things you saw as problematic?

Also, to what degree is it shaping up to unite disparate edition bases? Does it yet look like it will be playstyle and conversion friendly? Is it heading in a direction that will make older modules and characters easily portable?

I like the approach of DDN - modularity, a desire to create a basic game for those new to the hobby and character creation seem all to be very interesting. But there is a long way to go to be better than 4th ed IMO. I just not sure that DDN has enough to make interesting martial types compared to 4th ed and I think things like static defences in 4th are more elegant than a mixture of saves and attack rolls. Maybe DDN advanced module will hit the right notes, but they seem to have grab bag of tactical options in mind here - I hope utility powers, skill challenges get a look in for those who like 4th ed but also like non-combat options.