D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[WizarDru]

In a possibly Quixotic attempt to return to the original topic:

So, what about you? What vain ambitions do you desire out of D&D Next? What promises does WotC have to deliver on? Can you be won over, and how?

D&D Next primarily has to deliver on the promise of the beta test, for me. What that means to me, personally, is to deliver a game that plays quickly, offers meaningful choices, evokes the elements of prior editions that I enjoy(ed) but reflects a modern sensibility on the material. Nice fine terms, obviously, but I'll strive for some specifics. cs, to some degree. Every edition of D&D has had it's strengths and weaknesses. I would hope that D&D Next tries to merge them into a stronger whole. I started with the Red Box; Basic D&D's simplicity made it instantly appealing. I 'graduated' to AD&D for its features...but like everyone who played that I knew, we customized it, ignoring what we disliked and adding what we wanted. I skipped 2E...it didn't offer me what I wanted right then. I wanted GURPS and 2E felt like just AD&D...but different. That's not really fair to 2E, but that was my thinking at the time. When 3E came out, I liked that it learned from GURPS (which, by that point had stagnated for me) but retained it's flavor and feel as D&D, maintaining core elements that worked. 3.5 was an incremental improvement, adding minor fixes (though so many minor fixes that system mastery was, unfortunately, impaired). 4E seemed like it would address many of the d20 systems shortfalls...and in many ways it did. But after a couple years of playing, it still doesn't feel like D&D to me or my playes in many ways. It's not that it isn't a good system...but it doesn't feel like the D&D I've played over the last 30 years.

What do I want? Well, I would be happy with Vancian magic or something better than 4E's system, which feels dull and mechanical to me. Magic and magic items feel utilitarian and flavorless in 4E, with an emphasis on combat applications that feels designed to stifle innovative use of the stuff.

I want the core character classes to feel different, play different and have meaningful mechanical differences. A large subthread in this discussion has been over fighters having spells. Some of my players have complained about this aspect of 4E: specifically that the fighters basic attack doesn't generally behave, in practical terms, any differently than a magic missle or a sneak-attack or a warlock's curse or fire-breath. Yes, they are different, but they don't feel all that different in play. And that matters to my players and I.

I also want the removal of 'ROLES' in the 4E sense. I feel like they were a good idea at the outset, but that their actual use has resulted in round pegs going into square holes. When we had classes being defined as 'Leader/Striker hybrids' and such...the concept doesn't quite work. Especially since it changed some core classes to not match their behavior in all previous editions of the game. My wife almost quit D&D because her fighter was not good at her job....she had become a defender, the MMO 'tank'. Yes, she could change to a Slayer or some other class...but I had no good answer for why she no longer was the best fighter in a group (or the best tank, either, as the paladin soon showed). I applaud the idea of roles and many other ideas in 4E...but in D&D, they seemed to diverge away from what we wanted.

I want a system that will recreate the first session of the Sunless Citadel or the first time we visited the Caves of Chaos....with the characters feeling different, with different powers and abilities. If D&D Next can make me excited about dungeon-crawling again, I'll be a happy customer.

Oh, but what I really want? A new OGL and much better electronic/online support. 4E's compendium is probably the best thing about 4E, but the GSL stifling all the tools that 3E had due to the SRD is a bummer. I don't need WotC to make online tools (though if they create them, I'll buy them if they work), but to allow fans to make and share their own. There is simply no reason that WotC hasn't written an iOS/Android app for D&D Insider, for example.

I want D&D Next to be fun. Hopefully for as many people as possible.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Going back to the original topic, what 5E needs to do to win me over is to show me that "4E isn't D&D" isn't a core design philosophy of the system.

5E has generally indicated the opposite so far.

 

[technoextreme]

As mentioned in a different thread or discussion, people, by their nature, will always seek out differences. When you look at the various on-field team-based ball sports you spot differences. American and Canadian football uses pads. There's less padding in Rugby and no offensive/defensive separation. Soccer/football does not let you use your hands. Basketball uses the hands instead of the feet and moves the goal vertical.
Huge differences.
Until compared to any other sport. When consider the length and breadth of the term "sport" the kick ball sports do seem rather indistinct and confusable.

Your example falls apart when a lot of team sports have more in common with their non competitive sports. Hockey is usually associated as a variant of ice skating. Polo is generally associated as an equestrian or a swimming event. I'm not entirely sure about rugby but if you stopped and actually pay attention to a sport like football you will realize that even then you are hitting different types of athleticism between the positions. For example you can have defensive players built like a tank which once again in of itself is a type of sport while another player is built more like a track and field star.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Going back to the original topic, what 5E needs to do to win me over is to show me that "4E isn't D&D" isn't a core design philosophy of the system.

5E has generally indicated the opposite so far.

What do you expect?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If its a big boss battle as you said then spending you xp budget for the day will indeed balance the encounter

No, it will not. Basically, the "Daily" abiltiies will allow the party to "front-load" in damage and debilitating effects that will effetively make the combat a shorter affair then it would be if it was spread out across multiple encounters. That means overall less "at-wills" that would need to be used. In a 400 XP combat, your Fireball will likely not hit more than 3-4 enemies. In a 1000 XP battle, it has a good chance to hit more. If instead of many enemies, there are tougher enemies, a Hold Person spell will neutralize a tougher monster than it would normally do. The typical effects associated with wizard and cleric (offensive) magic make them work better in such situations.

This is pretty much what happened in 3E when we did these "boss battles".

 

[Sammael]

The first thing D&D Next must do for me to even consider adopting it is to include, in the core rules, a robust skill system. Unfortunately, since the core mechanic seems to be completely dependent on ability scores with skills being nothing more than an afterthought (even more so than in AD&D 2nd edition), I am really skeptical on whether they can (or indeed want to) pull this off.

I hate the "ability scores are king" paradigm so much that I don't even have the desire to playtest the D&D Next rules I received back in May. When I look at the character sheets and the bazillion tiny meaningless circumstantial bonuses that are meant to replace skills, I can only shake my head in disbelief.

 

[Shadeydm]

No, it will not. Basically, the "Daily" abiltiies will allow the party to "front-load" in damage and debilitating effects that will effetively make the combat a shorter affair then it would be if it was spread out across multiple encounters. That means overall less "at-wills" that would need to be used. In a 400 XP combat, your Fireball will likely not hit more than 3-4 enemies. In a 1000 XP battle, it has a good chance to hit more. If instead of many enemies, there are tougher enemies, a Hold Person spell will neutralize a tougher monster than it would normally do. The typical effects associated with wizard and cleric (offensive) magic make them work better in such situations.

This is pretty much what happened in 3E when we did these "boss battles".

All you are doing is displaying prior edition prejudice. We have only seen the first 3 levels of the very early test release of the game. I will in absence of proof to the contrary not assume they are making a broken game. If this scenario has minor inbalance to it won't be the end of the world. To be quite frank even in earlier edition these scenariors were not universally unbalanced.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

All you are doing is displaying prior edition prejudice. We have only seen the first 3 levels of the very early test release of the game. I will in absence of proof to the contrary not assume they are making a broken game. If this scenario has minor inbalance to it won't be the end of the world. To be quite frank even in earlier edition these scenariors were not universally unbalanced.

You may be right and I hope you are (Well, except for the fact that you'd disprove my predictions, and I hate to be wrong, except if I am right, I'd hate it more...)

I think a lot hinges on what kind of spells, how strong, and how many the Wizard will actually be able to cast (also accounting for items like scrolls and their general availability/cost). The 3E spellcaster could cast a boat-load of spells, boost his save DCs, and had strong save or suck effects and all that.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

What do you expect?

I expect them to genuinely deliver on their promise of a modular D&D for everyone, as opposed to going back to the past, with prejudice.

 

[Neonchameleon]

All you are doing is displaying prior edition prejudice. We have only seen the first 3 levels of the very early test release of the game. I will in absence of proof to the contrary not assume they are making a broken game. If this scenario has minor inbalance to it won't be the end of the world. To be quite frank even in earlier edition these scenariors were not universally unbalanced.

We might have only seen the first 3 levels. But those 3 levels we saw were broken and broken in some ways the doomsayers were predicting even before we saw them.

How were they broken?

• The fighter sucked. Sucked in an entirely predictable way. Wasn't even awesome in the 2e combat monster way.
• Damage scaling was all kinds of screwed up - especially for the rogue and wizard. Magic Missile at level 1 was decent. At level 3 it was pretty lethal especially against hard targets.
• Vancian casting gave a massive out of combat disparity between e.g. fighter and cleric - something comments since have boiled down to "suck it up, buttercup"

Even off 3 levels the playtest was broken. Badly and predictably. Based on that they are making a broken game - and it's up to us to do something about it by objecting.

 

[Cybit]

In a possibly Quixotic attempt to return to the original topic:



D&D Next primarily has to deliver on the promise of the beta test, for me. What that means to me, personally, is to deliver a game that plays quickly, offers meaningful choices, evokes the elements of prior editions that I enjoy(ed) but reflects a modern sensibility on the material. Nice fine terms, obviously, but I'll strive for some specifics. cs, to some degree. Every edition of D&D has had it's strengths and weaknesses. I would hope that D&D Next tries to merge them into a stronger whole. I started with the Red Box; Basic D&D's simplicity made it instantly appealing. I 'graduated' to AD&D for its features...but like everyone who played that I knew, we customized it, ignoring what we disliked and adding what we wanted. I skipped 2E...it didn't offer me what I wanted right then. I wanted GURPS and 2E felt like just AD&D...but different. That's not really fair to 2E, but that was my thinking at the time. When 3E came out, I liked that it learned from GURPS (which, by that point had stagnated for me) but retained it's flavor and feel as D&D, maintaining core elements that worked. 3.5 was an incremental improvement, adding minor fixes (though so many minor fixes that system mastery was, unfortunately, impaired). 4E seemed like it would address many of the d20 systems shortfalls...and in many ways it did. But after a couple years of playing, it still doesn't feel like D&D to me or my playes in many ways. It's not that it isn't a good system...but it doesn't feel like the D&D I've played over the last 30 years.

What do I want? Well, I would be happy with Vancian magic or something better than 4E's system, which feels dull and mechanical to me. Magic and magic items feel utilitarian and flavorless in 4E, with an emphasis on combat applications that feels designed to stifle innovative use of the stuff.

I want the core character classes to feel different, play different and have meaningful mechanical differences. A large subthread in this discussion has been over fighters having spells. Some of my players have complained about this aspect of 4E: specifically that the fighters basic attack doesn't generally behave, in practical terms, any differently than a magic missle or a sneak-attack or a warlock's curse or fire-breath. Yes, they are different, but they don't feel all that different in play. And that matters to my players and I.

I also want the removal of 'ROLES' in the 4E sense. I feel like they were a good idea at the outset, but that their actual use has resulted in round pegs going into square holes. When we had classes being defined as 'Leader/Striker hybrids' and such...the concept doesn't quite work. Especially since it changed some core classes to not match their behavior in all previous editions of the game. My wife almost quit D&D because her fighter was not good at her job....she had become a defender, the MMO 'tank'. Yes, she could change to a Slayer or some other class...but I had no good answer for why she no longer was the best fighter in a group (or the best tank, either, as the paladin soon showed). I applaud the idea of roles and many other ideas in 4E...but in D&D, they seemed to diverge away from what we wanted.

I want a system that will recreate the first session of the Sunless Citadel or the first time we visited the Caves of Chaos....with the characters feeling different, with different powers and abilities. If D&D Next can make me excited about dungeon-crawling again, I'll be a happy customer.

Oh, but what I really want? A new OGL and much better electronic/online support. 4E's compendium is probably the best thing about 4E, but the GSL stifling all the tools that 3E had due to the SRD is a bummer. I don't need WotC to make online tools (though if they create them, I'll buy them if they work), but to allow fans to make and share their own. There is simply no reason that WotC hasn't written an iOS/Android app for D&D Insider, for example.

I want D&D Next to be fun. Hopefully for as many people as possible.

I think, unfortunately, many of us are confusing nostalgia for game mechanics. Nothing will ever take us back to the thrill of our first dungeon crawl, except, frankly, ourselves.

Just my humble thoughts.

 

[billd91]

I expect them to genuinely deliver on their promise of a modular D&D for everyone, as opposed to going back to the past, with prejudice.

If they decided that 4e style mechanics weren't working for them as a company and they reject that development direction as a result, that's pretty much a definition of being with out prejudice. They're not prejudging anything if their experiences with 4e mechanics aren't generating the results they want. They're working from empirical evidence.

 

[D'karr]

If they decided that 4e style mechanics weren't working for them as a company and they reject that development direction as a result, that's pretty much a definition of being with out prejudice. They're not prejudging anything if their experiences with 4e mechanics aren't generating the results they want. They're working from empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence, which neither you or I have. So why don't we just stop pretending that we have facts as to rejection of particular development directions because they were "not working for them as a company." Obviously neither of us have those facts.

 

[billd91]

Empirical evidence, which neither you or I have. So why don't we just stop pretending that we have facts as to rejection of particular development directions because they were "not working for them as a company." Obviously neither of us have those facts.

But we do have their own statements and actions that we have observed and we can make inferences off of those. I doubt that they'd be engaging in a big, open play test of D&D Next at this time and be making the statements they're making without reason. Can you think of an alternate scenario with as much credibility as 4e isn't performing compared to some metric as well as WotC had hoped? And if they really are developing D&D Next in a direction away from 4e, is it really so hard to believe they have a reason for doing so rather than branding it prejudicial?

 

[Shadeydm]

We might have only seen the first 3 levels. But those 3 levels we saw were broken and broken in some ways the doomsayers were predicting even before we saw them.

How were they broken?

• The fighter sucked. Sucked in an entirely predictable way. Wasn't even awesome in the 2e combat monster way.
• Damage scaling was all kinds of screwed up - especially for the rogue and wizard. Magic Missile at level 1 was decent. At level 3 it was pretty lethal especially against hard targets.
• Vancian casting gave a massive out of combat disparity between e.g. fighter and cleric - something comments since have boiled down to "suck it up, buttercup"

Even off 3 levels the playtest was broken. Badly and predictably. Based on that they are making a broken game - and it's up to us to do something about it by objecting.

I really want to take at face value that you want to let them know how the game is broken but your post here doesn't really reflect that. The closest thing I see to a concrete problem here is that you think Magic Missle is too lethal. Maybe your giving great and detailed feedback in the playtest surveys but what I see here is just feelings about earlier editions coloring your view of current and not much in the way of specifics. I believe in 4E the rogue and sorcerer are pretty much the damage kings too, yet I don't hear anyone crying broken over it.
The consistant theme for 4E fans problems with 5e seem to boiled down to" its not built off of 4E so it going to suck I just know it." Which is in and of itself not particularly convincing unless one considers 4E to be the pinnacle of D&D game design.

 

[D'karr]

But we do have their own statements and actions that we have observed and we can make inferences off of those.

It will still be nothing more that opinions not based on facts, because we don't have those.

I'll leave the tin-foil hat speculation to those that enjoy it. Me, I'm going to concentrate on what I like, or don't like about the current developments and make suggestions based on that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But we do have their own statements and actions that we have observed and we can make inferences off of those. I doubt that they'd be engaging in a big, open play test of D&D Next at this time and be making the statements they're making without reason. Can you think of an alternate scenario with as much credibility as 4e isn't performing compared to some metric as well as WotC had hoped? And if they really are developing D&D Next in a direction away from 4e, is it really so hard to believe they have a reason for doing so rather than branding it prejudicial?

They did also in a lot of ways move away from how things where done in 3E with 4E. Moreover, each previous edition has been replaced with a new edition so far, so what can we really take from that about the quality or success chance of the previous editions?

I figure the major problem for WotC is that after 4 years of the same edition, sales get too low so it's time for a new (half) edition. That didn't seem to be true for D&D under TSR - did the quality of the editions wane? The denands of the audience grow? Or are just the financial goals for WotC different from TSR's? A combination? 2 out of 3?

 

[Herschel]

If they decided that 4e style mechanics weren't working for them as a company and they reject that development direction as a result, that's pretty much a definition of being with out prejudice. They're not prejudging anything if their experiences with 4e mechanics aren't generating the results they want. They're working from empirical evidence.

Were this true they would be going in an entirely different direction as 3E style mechanics were also not working for them as a company which is why even after giving a multi-year period for their revisions to work they came out with 4E.

And this being after the 2E style mechanics weren't working for them even though they acquired them as part of the D&D IP/brand.

 

[drothgery]

I figure the major problem for WotC is that after 4 years of the same edition, sales get too low so it's time for a new (half) edition. That didn't seem to be true for D&D under TSR - did the quality of the editions wane? The denands of the audience grow? Or are just the financial goals for WotC different from TSR's? A combination? 2 out of 3?

Remember that TSR was in a terrible financial mess for most 2e's lifetime. It's likely a healthy TSR would have launched a third edition sooner, at least by a few years.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I really want to take at face value that you want to let them know how the game is broken but your post here doesn't really reflect that. The closest thing I see to a concrete problem here is that you think Magic Missle is too lethal. Maybe your giving great and detailed feedback in the playtest surveys but what I see here is just feelings about earlier editions coloring your view of current and not much in the way of specifics.

We have been through the maths many times on other threads about fighter vs warpriest. And with the warpriest's hour long buff (i.e. long enough to last an entire delve into the Caves) the fighter does a grand total of half a point more damage than the warpriest once you normalise strength. The warpriest makes as good a fighter as the fighter while being able to other things like Command on days he doesn't have to bother with fighting. Oh and heal - the Warpriest brings more hp to the party than the fighter thanks to Healing Word. (Note: I'm normalising weapons here - giving the fighter a shield and one handed axe so he actually has the resilience he needs to stand in the battle line).

I didn't realise I needed to go through this.

I believe in 4E the rogue and sorcerer are pretty much the damage kings too, yet I don't hear anyone crying broken over it.

That's because you're incorrect except at very low level - and even then under limited circumstances. The Elementalist Sorceror has the highest at will single attack damage in the game - but is (a) the squishiest class in the game and (b) has no daily powers or much of anything else. The rogue also starts out with a high level of damage - but requires combat advantage to use it. Which means it's situational or, more accurately a risk to use. A level 1 rogue doing full optimised DPR might as well call himself Rembrandt he'll be on the canvas so much. (Sneak attack every round is possible and indeed desirable but not full optimised DPR).

There are two basic ways to blow the DPR curve doing single target damage.

The first is to multiattack and have a lot of static damage boosts. Because every time you have a static damage boost it gets multiplied by the number of attacks you have. This is why Rain of Blows is considered a monster-power for CharOp. Also immediate and minor action attacks both give you an extra attack, again multiplying up your damage.

The second way is Charge-cheese. Over the four years there have been a lot of powers, feats, and items added to the game that make your charge more powerful. Any one of them isn't a problem. Half a dozen of them at once on the other hand is. This was probably at its worst with the FeyCharger (nerfed).

For multiattacks, the Ranger is king. It has one of the very few multiattack At Will powers in the game (Twin Strike) - and can with a little effort make all its encounter powers either minor actions or immediate attacks. The CharOp King contest faours as an At Will Reposte Strike because they focus on at will damage - and Riposte Strike allows an interrupt attack if the enemy you hit hits you back. (And then they take three feats or even oick their entire race and class to lock their target into hitting them back). In practical play for single target damage Twin Strike is the almost undisputed king when backed with the Ranger's collection of minor action and interrupt attacks (starting with Fox's Retreat and Disruptive Strike).

I'm not sure who's top of the charge-cheese stakes at the moment. The Ranger has an attack where you throw an axe and charge someone else. But it's the gouge slayer I think - Slayers have a Melee Basic Attack from hell (better than most at wills), have a stance for charge damage, and can get a lot of things to stack onto that.

And yes, people do object to Twin Strike - this is one of the few WotC haven't nerfed (and indeed made one of the April Fools' Day 2011 articles a random one of five possible ways of changing Twin Strike). And the last time there was a genuinely broken Paragon Path, people cheered when it was nerfed.

The consistant theme for 4E fans problems with 5e seem to boiled down to" its not built off of 4E so it going to suck I just know it." Which is in and of itself not particularly convincing unless one considers 4E to be the pinnacle of D&D game design.

No they don't. I've given my answer with what the problems are.