D&D 5E Living Dice Article: "Is It Really D&D Next?"

[Transformer]

I must say, I'm with the people who can't see how the playtest is anything more like 3e than it is like 4e. It has 4e-style 1st level hitpoints. It has reworked healing surges. It has 4e-style monster XP. It's making a genuine effort to be balanced across all levels. It's false and alarmist, plain and simple, to say that this playtest "effectively disregard the contributions of 4th Edition."

The most distinctive thing about 4e is the power system, and specifically the varied combat options given to every class and not just spellcasters. The thing is, we haven't seen the 4e-style fighter yet, because there isn't one on the first playtest. It's sheer nonsense to conclude that you won't be able to play a 4e-style fighter (or rogue or barbarian), especially when WotC has explicitly said that you will be able to play a 4e-style fighter.

Now, if you want to drive the message home to Wizards that the 4e-style fighter, when it comes, had better be good, and had better be balanced, and had better be as interesting as the wizard, by all means do that. But don't presume that it won't be at this stage in the game. There's no evidence for that.

I can think of only a few things about 4e that I would say were unequivocally good and should be brought back, but which are not in the playtest. First, 4e monster stat blocks are a must. Second, 4e's in-combat action economy was excellent and should return; or at least, minor actions should return.

But seriously, this self-righteous "Wizards clearly hates 4e and wants to sweep it and its fans under the rug now!" meme has got to stop. It is obviously, factually untrue. And I say this as a person who liked 4e more than any previous edition.

 

[RHGreen]

I reached the sentence -

"As a DM, I could care less how my players make their characters;"

- and then stopped reading.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw]Dear America... | David Mitchell's SoapBox - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

The comments that followed the article seem to indicate that some people might have read it but not understood it. 4th Edition had its problems, most notably the power-system and the reliance of defined “encounters”, but it also contributed the franchise in many ways. This 5th Edition was designed to emulate the feel of previous editions; this much is obvious, but the article was meant to convey the hope that it still stand on its own as well as being an evolution of the previous dozen or so editions and revisions. As of the current stage of development, it still feels a bit too retro. It’s gotten better, but by no means am I declaring the rules either bad or a carbon copy of 3rd Edition, because at no point do I make that accusation.

I still have hope the rules will improve and take advantage of some of the DM-friendly contributions of 4th Edition. Defenders still have to make saving throws for area effects, mind you, something I've never been a fan of, but at least direct spells now target AC, though this results in two different combat mechanics for spells. I have said that monsters should be enclosed stat blocks with little reference to anything outside of the manual, and it’s an opinion that won’t change. I have other issues detached form my experience as a DM/GM, most notably the impression that character options are more limited. At character creation, you got to select a class, a race, a feat (or two), 4-6 skills with point distribution, gear, and (if you had the right books) a background and theme. Now you select race, class, a background, a theme, and gear. Backgrounds and Themes were elements introduced with later books, now combined to be integral to character creation. But back then they were separate and thus offered more customization.

Of course, why should I complain? If this is the philosophy of 5th Edition, it will make publishing books for it so much easier.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Whether you love or hate 4e, you have to admit that it was bold and innovative. It was unapologetic for trying new things and taking the game in new directions.

When I first heard about 5e and its goal to be a "unity" edition and all the talks about modularity and trying to please everyone, my biggest fear was that this edition wasn't going to be bold or innovative, that the developers would be so timid and apologetic that they wouldn't really try anything new.

The playtest has alleviated much of that concern. I think the way they're focusing on ability scores, the radical new approach to skills, themes and backgrounds, advantage/disadvantage, and other things have shown me that they are willing to try new things, that they are willing to go back and reinvent the wheel, so to speak. I find that encouraging.

 

[Leatherhead]

I reached the sentence -

"As a DM, I could care less how my players make their characters;"

- and then stopped reading.

But they could, in fact, care less. Discussing and thinking about a subject requires a non-zero amount of care.

When you say that you "can care less", it implies the subject is so trivial to you, that you can push it from your mind.
In contrast, if you couldn't care less, then the subject would be on your mind at all times.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

When you say that you "can care less", it implies the subject is so trivial to you, that you can push it from your mind.
In contrast, if you couldn't care less, then the subject would be on your mind at all times.

As the one that made that grammatical faux pas, I can appreciate your comments. I do honestly care about character creation because as a game designer, it's content I have to create, and designing classes for Essentials was easier than traditional 4th Edition. However, my interest diminishes when it involves the range of player choice in character creation, especially since I don't have that responsibility as a DM/GM. I simply assumed players may take issue with it, but if they don't, then who am I to criticize?

 

[Obryn]

I'm still skeptical on the playtest - more on this in a bit - but I absolutely see 4e, 3e, and 1e/2e influences in Next so far.

Many of the 4e mechanics are still here; lots of them are just vaguely disguised or couched in walls of text. It bugs me - I'd like minor actions spelled out, for example, and At-Will spells called what they are - but they're here if you look.

Many of 3e's innovations - some of which carried over to 4e - are here, too. Feats, for example. The ability score table. Positive ACs.

If anything, given the focus I can see so far, it almost seems like a re-try at a new sort of 3rd edition, trying to make it a more direct successor of 2e and incorporating the lessons learned from 3.x and 4e over the past 12 years.

My main concern isn't that it's going to un-learn the lessons of 4e. It seems to me like they're taking the ones they can, without disrupting the flavor they're looking for. I don't know if I agree with this design goal, but if that's what it is - that's what it is. And it's fine. I think 4e, with its update cycle, is a very polished, working game. If I'm going to buy 5e, it needs to be different from what's come before. There has to be a reason for me to want to play it instead of 1e or 4e (my two editions of choice).

Which is where I have a problem with it. I have little need for half-step games like Castles & Crusades. If I want to run an oldschool game, I want the whole oldschool experience. If I want to run a polished, slick newschool game, ditto. I don't know if I care to go back to the stuff in the middle right now, and that's kind of how it looks like 5e will shape up.

-O

 

[Celestian]

My guess is that the majority of DMs would prefer monster information to be complete and this should be reflected in their testing.

I'm curious what you mean by this. I found the details in the MM part of the packet for critters pretty complete.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm curious what you mean by this. I found the details in the MM part of the packet for critters pretty complete.

This is in reference to needing to look up spells for the caster. While a really like 3.x/PF, having to look up spells or some abilities was a pain, and to use such things effectively would require a little extra prep to make sure that you get some of the more complex stuff correct.

In comparison, I think 4e got the presentation right, even if the design of their monsters was a little too limited. Damned if you do, or don't I suspect.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Stalker0]

I think the final version of monsters will retain a lot of the 4e formatting....but more interesting.

This is my hope, I game where I get 3e like characters but 4e like monsters would be a great improvement imo.