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.