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

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It's funny everyone's saying it looks so much like 3e because I don't see it at all.

If I were to try to describe Next in terms of what's come before... I'd say that, more than anything, it looks like Classic plus Essentials with just a little bit of the exact right parts of 2e. Give me the full 4e-style ability score inflation and AD&D multiclass rules and it'll be the bestest D&D ever.

 

[Mercule]

Personally, I'd kind of like to see 4th edition kept not in terms of rules but in terms of flavor, with stuff like dragonborn, primordials, and so on. I wasn't a big fan of the game, but a lot of the setting stuff was pretty cool. Too bad it's going to get mostly jettisoned.

I'm kind of in the same boat, here. The dragonborn, especially, grew on me. We've had early pseudo-confirmation that those will make it to 5e, though, so I wouldn't make too many assumptions (in either direction) about what 4e flavor is or isn't being kept. All I'm reading into it, right now, is that the playtest is as vanilla/traditional as possible, which makes sense for a first pass. Having the "big four" races isn't any more significant than having the "big four" classes.

I'm kind of hoping we'll see the playtest paladin be a dragonborn. I'm not a big fan of tieflings, but I could see the playtest warlock be tiefling. After the ranger is released (as an elf, presumably), maybe we'll see the wizard move to eladrin (which is the one required port, for me, unless they fix the elf to be an arcanist first and a hippy second).

 

[Nathal]

To me it reads like the game I hoped for when I first learned of 3E.

As a 2nd edition, 3rd edition and 4th edition player and DM, I really see a lot of similarities to all of these games.

I wanted to give some examples, but actually finding something that is only in 3rd edition and not also in 2nd or 4th was difficult.

So in a certain way, it seems like it is 3rd edition like, because 3 is the arithmetic middle between 2 and 4.

And this is the direction the rules should take. A blend between 4th and 2nd editon that should have the flexibility of 3rd would be an edition that I really like.
And if the final version resembles the current playtest version it will definitively be a game I like.

 

[Agamon]

I'm kind of in the same boat, here. The dragonborn, especially, grew on me. We've had early pseudo-confirmation that those will make it to 5e, though, so I wouldn't make too many assumptions (in either direction) about what 4e flavor is or isn't being kept. All I'm reading into it, right now, is that the playtest is as vanilla/traditional as possible, which makes sense for a first pass. Having the "big four" races isn't any more significant than having the "big four" classes.

I'm kind of hoping we'll see the playtest paladin be a dragonborn. I'm not a big fan of tieflings, but I could see the playtest warlock be tiefling. After the ranger is released (as an elf, presumably), maybe we'll see the wizard move to eladrin (which is the one required port, for me, unless they fix the elf to be an arcanist first and a hippy second).

I'm in the other boat. I don't mind seeing a few of the rules, there was some innovation in 4e. But I could do without the flavor. I like the AD&D vibe the playtest has right now, it would be sad if that was replaced. Not that more classes and races is bad, as long as it doesn't lose the feel.

 

[Mercule]

I'm in the other boat. I don't mind seeing a few of the rules, there was some innovation in 4e. But I could do without the flavor. I like the AD&D vibe the playtest has right now, it would be sad if that was replaced. Not that more classes and races is bad, as long as it doesn't lose the feel.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an AD&D fan. That doesn't mean that 3e and 4e don't have any value, rules-wise. I want to see rituals stick around. I want the warlord and warlock, too. I prefer 4e skills over 3e, though it looks like 5e will pick neither (hopefully learning from the shortcomings of each). While I don't care for the universal table of class abilities, I certainly like the class customization they offer and hope to see that continued, rather than the blanket of "it's a feat" from 3e.

Conversely, I specifically and emphatically don't want a Talislanta or "creature cantina" setting with dozens of PC races assumed and/or implied as standard. I think the dragonborn (and maybe tieflings and/or goliaths) provide enough non-Tolkien spice for the core. I'd like to see halflings dropped, but recognize that's not likely. I also don't really want to foist two versions of elves on the world, but I don't see any other way to not tick off either people like me who see the arcane eladrin as proper elves or those like one of my players who are more fans of the granola, woodsy elves.

 

[Consonant Dude]

If 5th edition is just going to be a rehashed 3rd edition, I'll just return to Pathfinder. 4th edition isn't a complete wash.

Except the DnD playtest looks nothing like a 3rd edition rehash. Nothing.

If it did, I wouldn't be playing the thing.

 

[Agamon]

Except the DnD playtest looks nothing like a 3rd edition rehash. Nothing.

If it did, I wouldn't be playing the thing.

Yeah, it seems like the optimistic people are trying to see in the game what they like, the pessimistic see what they don't like, when really, this is an interesting meshing of pretty much all of the editions.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, it seems like the optimistic people are trying to see in the game what they like, the pessimistic see what they don't like, when really, this is an interesting meshing of pretty much all of the editions.

Most funnily: that is what they said, what they are aiming for.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Conversely, I specifically and emphatically don't want a Talislanta or "creature cantina" setting with dozens of PC races assumed and/or implied as standard.

I don't mind it as long as the setting is "big" enough for it. Something like Planescape or Spelljammer has plenty of room for dozens of races. Problem in more traditional settings is that you have the dozens of PC races, and then the dozens of humanoid monsters-- races in their own right-- and on and on and on.

I also don't really want to foist two versions of elves on the world, but I don't see any other way to not tick off either people like me who see the arcane eladrin as proper elves or those like one of my players who are more fans of the granola, woodsy elves.

Well, I think 4e started to get that right with the elective ability score bonus. If they do more of what I've been begging for them to do-- expand what 'race' means in D&D-- then tying more racial features to your choice of bonus would allow them to have greater diversity within a more manageable number of races.

Think like Pathfinder's Advanced Player's Guide and the alternate racial features, but moreso. Instead of having 'elf' and 'eladrin', or 'hill dwarf' and 'mountain dwarf'... you have 'elf' with one set of racial features, and dwarf with one set of racial features, that are still part of the same greater Elven and Dwarven races and thus take up less conceptual space than multiple Elven and Dwarven subraces.

 

[nnms]

Except the DnD playtest looks nothing like a 3rd edition rehash. Nothing.

If it did, I wouldn't be playing the thing.

I see more 3rd in the playtest than any other addition.

• The skills are all still there, but you just have a modifier equal to your ability if you specifically don't have training. No skill points, but who knows what all the character creation options will bring.
• The initiative system is the same.
• The skills for things like jumping and climbing are all still there, but simply moved into the movement chapter.
• Feats are there and while they are delivered by theme/background, the articles have said you'll be able to custom choose them as well.
• Saves are like 3E, but expanded into 6 rather than 3.
• 3e style armour (light, med, heavy with dex bonus for some) and weapon properties/categories.
• Basic resolution system is the same (d20 + modifier vs DC)
• Rogue has 3E sneak attack rather than previous editions that required true surprise, not just flanking/advantage/whatever.
• You get XP like 3E by defeating monsters and traps.

There is a ton of 3E stuff in 5E. So much so that I'd pretty much call it a paired down 3rd edition with some extra mechanics glued on (advantage/disadvantage, hit dice as healing, cantrips, etc.,).

If you like 5E so far, you'd probably be better served by the Pathfinder Beginner Box as it is so, so similar and well tested and proven compared to 5E.