Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Odhanan" data-source="post: 5921699" data-attributes="member: 12324">Some thoughts.This is a role playing game system. By which I mean it does not come off as an hybrid, a board game, a video game, a story game, etc. It's a role playing game. You could possibly play actual D&D with this. By which I mean "dungeons and dragons", i.e. explore the unknown, face various threats and challenges in so doing, with the promise of rewards or death.This is not a game in the O/AD&D tradition. It is a game more in the tradition of 2nd edition AD&D and Rules Cyclopedia, maybe, with a rules mesh that is heavily borrowed from 3rd and 4th editions broken down to their barest expressions. It borrows from the old editions in terms of vibe, and you could run your game in such a way as to make it feel very much like a traditional version of the game (like you could run 2nd ed in a traditional way), but what I'm seeing in these playtest documents isn't 'old school'. I like some things, dislike others, but in my mind, it's not because the game isn't 'old school' that it's automatically bad, or because it'd be 'old school' it'd be automatically good. These are different considerations to me.The power curve is flatlined, the math of the game is greatly simplified. That is a good thing. There are still modifiers to deal with and "math going on," adding ability modifiers plus skill modifiers and whatnot. That is not so good.The codification of the character sheets rubs me the wrong way. I get that these are introductory pieces to the game, but some of the tone and the wording of the features, feats etc. reminds me too much of 3rd/4th ed's nitpicky definition of terms. I don't like this. Love the Backgrounds and their set of skills and particular thing that makes them stand apart: they're simple, straightforward, and can add a lot to a character. I am FAR more ambivalent to the notion of Theme as expressed here in these documents, which to me look like a codification of 4e's notion of "Roles" in a metagame sense - the striker, the controller, etc. I don’t want that in my game.I like advantages and disadvantages. They're relatively simple to use and adjudicate, their effect is simple (roll two dice and take the highest/lowest results and poof, done), that can be used with or without minis... it's good. Keep this.Skills as stuff you do that is expressed as a modifier as part of a class feature, background or whatnot is cool with me. Not having a laundry list of predetermined, edge-defined skills on the character sheet is a very good thing.The concept of at-wills cantrips for Wizards gets a big "meh" from me, but I can live with it (and house rule it right out of the gate if needs be).Some abilities of classes rub me the wrong way, such as the fighter's surge, which is arbitrarily set at two times per day, or the dwarf fighter doing damage when he doesn’t hit stuff. "It's just a game, forget about it." Meh. Some feats showing up in Themes look very much like "feats" in a 3rd ed sense to me, and I do not like this at all.I like the increase in damage output that meshes well with the changes in hit point determination. More HP, more damage output. The death threshold in negative HPs is WAY too low, however. I would house rule that for my home campaign and get back to something like -10 HPs.The Hit Points recuperation mechanics are made of suck. This is forcing a play style on me I don't necessarily want when I am playing D&D, which is basically that you manage your short rests between "encounters" until you reach the end of the day, at which point you regain all your hit points magically. I have to assume magically, because apparently the physical part of the hit point abstraction has been thrown out the window: it's ALL luck and skill and fatigue, and no actual health, unless of course all your wounds magically close up after a period of 24 hours? Now I like the *idea* of rolling the hit dice for HP recuperation and managing the number of dice somehow. I just know I would house rule the rests mechanics right out the gate were I to run my campaign with this set of rules. I don’t like it so much it’s pretty much a deal-breaker, actually: I don’t know if I would even bother trying to find a house rule for this. It’s so fundamental to the game that it’s going to influence the modules and set ups of encounters from there. It is really NOT good at all. All strategic considerations in terms of health are excised from the game. All that matters is the immediate short term tactical management in a 24 hour period. At LEAST nuke that full HP regeneration during long rests, and please either don’t give all HDs back or find a way to mitigate their use, too. Maybe reintroduce the Bloodied condition at half HPs, and you can’t spend HDs on short rests while you are Bloodied. Something like that. Seriously, WTF were you thinking, guys? The monster writeups are alright as far as I can tell, so far. EDIT - but some of their abilities feel "gamey", like they are just there for the sake of differenciating monsters from each other, rather than being descriptive elements tied to the game world. If the Enervation ability of the Wight (in the Bestiary) is anything to go by as far as level drain is concerned, this totally stinks, as far as I'm concerned. Everything seems to be short term, "until the next long rest". The basic unit of the game becomes "the next 24 hours". All the strategic aspects of game play seem to have been nuked beyond that. This totally blows.Some instances of dissociated mechanics annoy me too, such as the fighter's surge, the dwarf fighter's ability do deal damage even when he doesn't hit his target, etc. I thought WotC had gotten the message on this one, but then again... maybe not.Individual initiative with different mods, I've done it with 3rd ed and 3.5, I'm not going back to it and the way it slows down combat considerably. I would house rule it using a Holmes/Moldvay round structure and group d6 rolls right out of the gate.</blockquote>

Verification