D&D 5E [L&L] Campaigns in D&D Next

[Balesir]

I challenge anyone in this thread to listen to the podcast and come to the same conclusion you did.

OK, I listened to it. I don't know that I came to the same conclusions as [MENTION=6706099]Sage Genesis[/MENTION] did, but here are some things I definitely got from it:

- Returning hit points is defined as "healing", which involves "fixing broken arms", reattaching severed hands and fixing guys who are "lying gutted on the ground" - and fighter types don't do that.

- Inspiring people is done by Charisma and is, apparently, something only Bards do. So "seconds" in boxing ara bards, now, apparently. Who knew?

In short, the top two (?) in the design team seem to see hit points as "meat", whatever their early design article said, and have what seems to me to be a pretty narrow view of what "leadership" is about. That would make a "Warlord" type character a rather kludgy mix (multiclass?) of Fighter, Bard and Cleric, it would seem to me. But without the music or the religious bits. Hmm. Can't say as I'm sold.

 

[fjw70]

I am not a Mearls basher but that podcast definitely seemed to be mocking the 4e warlord and not mocking WW in Braveheart.

 

[Halivar]

Both this release and last release, the lesson I come away with is that game designers should never, ever, ever share their thoughts with the public. Nothing good ever comes of it. Nothing is innocuous to the eager RPG news junkie.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Look, designers bash previous editions when a new one comes out. Mearls is just towing the line.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Look, designers bash previous editions when a new one comes out. Mearls is just towing the line.

Yeah that worked out so well for them with 4E.


The designers should focus on the new edition and why its so good instead of trashing thier very own efforts from just a few years ago. It doesn't make them look very good.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Yeah that worked out so well for them with 4E.


The designers should focus on the new edition and why its so good instead of trashing thier very own efforts from just a few years ago. It doesn't make them look very good.

It's stupid if we want to be perfectly honest here. Praising your own design when it's current and then bashing it when it's in the past just makes you look like a knob end.

 

[Mercurius]

No, that is not what I'm saying. I was using hyperbole to show how your words came across to me. Like, holding up a mirror to you. If you then criticize me for showing you something "rather extreme", well...that's kinda what I saw. That is the point.

Gotcha. I apologize for the miscommunication.

I have read every Next-related L&L, as well as watched every livestream of the devs, read their other articles, etc. I have also run several playtest sessions, using the playtest rules in different stages of the process. In short, I have been following this very closely for the past two years.

That's far more closely than I have. I've only skimmed the playtest rules (although plan on running them in a couple weeks...eek!) and come and gone with the various conversations, mainly gone.

You make it sound like I walked into this expecting snakes. I would like to correct you on that account...snip

Fair enough! I still haven't seen it, and to be honest I'm pretty impervious to "edition warring" - it really doesn't bother me (I see it as a feature, not a flaw in RPG discussion ).

I dislike the way modularity is put forth as a grand solution to many ills even though we haven't seen any kind of real modularity yet. Some options and houserule potential, but if that qualifies as "modularity" then a product like Unearthed Arcana is also "modularity". And the d20 days with all its 3rd party supplements and compatibilities would have been much more modular than anything Next is doing.

I can agree with you here and am a bit worried by the fact that we haven't seen anything like a "3esque uber-customization" module, or a "4esque AEDU tactical combat" module. Like you said, the glorified modular approach and complexity dial that was discussed early on may be morphing into "we're going to provide a lot of optional rules." That's fine with me, especially if the core game is simple enough.

As I told Mercurius earlier, I have paid very close attention to the development of Next. It's starting to dawn on me that perhaps I'm in a minority position here.

Now it may be that part of your skepticism is based upon following the development too closely. I mean, if you look at the architectural process of a building, it looks like crap until its finished.

 

[TarionzCousin]

The designers should focus on the new edition and why its so good instead of trashing thier very own efforts from just a few years ago. It doesn't make them look very good.

It's stupid if we want to be perfectly honest here. Praising your own design when it's current and then bashing it when it's in the past just makes you look like a knob end.

I think the designers are in a difficult position. They can't be neutral on their own recent work; that would come across as negative, to my thinking ("We think 5E is okay.").

I would bet that marketing (or someone) has told them to "be positive about D&D Next" and this is the result.

They aren't spin doctors, and our community is bound to hyper-analyze their every word and inflection. I just hope that the product delivers what they intend: a good game.

 

[LightPhoenix]

- Returning hit points is defined as "healing", which involves "fixing broken arms", reattaching severed hands and fixing guys who are "lying gutted on the ground" - and fighter types don't do that.

- Inspiring people is done by Charisma and is, apparently, something only Bards do. So "seconds" in boxing ara bards, now, apparently. Who knew?

In short, the top two (?) in the design team seem to see hit points as "meat", whatever their early design article said, and have what seems to me to be a pretty narrow view of what "leadership" is about. That would make a "Warlord" type character a rather kludgy mix (multiclass?) of Fighter, Bard and Cleric, it would seem to me. But without the music or the religious bits. Hmm. Can't say as I'm sold.

To me, this is more emblematic of the whole "hit points as an abstraction" problem than anything else. It doesn't matter what way anyone spins it, there will always be logical inconsistencies regarding hit points in some way or another. This isn't a 5E issue, this is a D&D issue that (IMO) spans every edition.

My fervent hope is for an optional rules module, preferably in the DMG, that covers more robust damage systems and including lasting injuries. By robust, I mean something a little more well thought-out than a WP/HP system, which I find only slightly less clunky than HP alone.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I think the designers are in a difficult position. They can't be neutral on their own recent work; that would come across as negative, to my thinking ("We think 5E is okay.").

I would bet that marketing (or someone) has told them to "be positive about D&D Next" and this is the result.

They aren't spin doctors, and our community is bound to hyper-analyze their every word and inflection. I just hope that the product delivers what they intend: a good game.

You don't have to bash your own previous work in order to be seen as positive about your current stuff.

Apparently, this lesson was not learned from the 4th edition era where the devs really took the piss out of 3rd edition.