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

[Agamon]

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.

Except...the PFBB is a release (so yeah, it better have more polish than a beta), and 5e is still a skeleton with a lot of development to come.

I agree with the others, if it was too much like 3e/PF, I'd have no interest in it.

 

[Celestian]

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.
• 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.

The skill system is more like the non-weapon profs in 1e/2e. You could use them without spending profs or you could spend profs and get bonuses... and they used ability checks for tasks.

The rogue sounds more like 1e/2e thief than the combat advantage/flanking versions. No, it doesn't require surprise but it requires you to be stealthed/sneaking (they fail counter check) and that implies you surprise them.

2e gave experience for thieves disarming traps.

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.

Unless they bungle multiclass like 3e I'll my eyes on Next.

 

[jadrax]

The skill system is more like the non-weapon profs in 1e/2e. You could use them without spending profs or you could spend profs and get bonuses... and they used ability checks for tasks.

Yes, the skill system in 5th is pretty much just the old 'non-weapon proficiency' system with a bit of WFRP thrown in (Drive Cart Skill, yay!) It dosen't really remind me of 3.5 in the slightest.

 

[nnms]

Yes, the skill system in 5th is pretty much just the old 'non-weapon proficiency' system with a bit of WFRP thrown in (Drive Cart Skill, yay!) It dosen't really remind me of 3.5 in the slightest.

When I look at the character sheet, I'd agree that it appears to be not like 3rd ed. However...

When I look at how it's handled in the system, I don't agree. The math and how it's all handled is right out of 3E. d20 + ability mod + skill + other bonuses vs DC.

That's 3rd ed.

2nd ed is closer to the BECMI skill system where you are rolling under an attribute/ability score.

 

[Tortoise]

Is It Really D&D Next? | LivingDice.com

"My only remaining worry is that the pillars of this new system will never be changed even if fan response proves them unpopular. One of these ideological foundations is the apparent obsession in recreating the perfect storm churned up by 3rd Edition, effectively disregarding the contributions of 4th Edition. The common complaint I’ve been reading recently is the similarity between this new edition with 3rd Edition and the lack of any carryover from 4th, peculiar considering the apparent assumed consensus that 4th Edition was a disaster on the same scale of New Coke and Highlander 2."

Having just playtested it I can confirm that in the current playtest document and in how it plays, there are plenty of elements from every edition including 4e, in Next. Try it out instead of griping. THEN tell folks what it feels like. That's the best way to evaluate and contribute to the discussion.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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

Yes. I love 3e, but I think that the 4e Monster Manual is probably the best example of such a book ever written.

 

[Mercule]

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.

Fair enough. My games typically assume, at most, a Greyhawk/Flanaess size setting. I would have far less heartburn with a creature cantina that was actually located at a galactic/transplanar crossroads like Mos Eisley. I also prefer a human-centric game and feel that D&D is best served by being such, just as the central characters is Star Wars were overwhelmingly human, despite having significant numbers of aliens.

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.

I could get behind this. I think 4e had stat bonuses that were obscenely high, but the package notion sounds good. I remember discussion leading up to 4e where they talked about race being meaningful and having fairly significant feat trees to make you more "dwarven". There was a nod to it, but that never really panned out.

If 5e was structured such that each race (maybe even just a couple in the PHB) had a couple of options presented. For instance, elves are elves, but the "high elf" package gets a +1 dex, -1 con, and a bonus with long swords and bows; while the "grey elf" package gets a +1 int, -1 con, and a couple cantrips. Once the pattern/mechanic is established, it wouldn't be that hard to add new options, either via explicit modules ("Complete Book of Dwarves"), setting books (Valinar get +1 dex, -1 wis, a bonus on scimitar/double scimitar, and a bonus to horsemanship), or just an article in Dragon ("Ecology of the Garden Gnome").

Of course, that's an awful lot like how I would like to see class themes work, too. But those are just feat groups.

 

[Mercule]

Yes. I love 3e, but I think that the 4e Monster Manual is probably the best example of such a book ever written.

Really? We are at complete odds, then. I found the 4e Monster Manual to probably be the worst such ever. The stat blocks were acceptable, and I can understand liking those. But complete lack of any fluff was unbearable. I still remember an encounter out of the Adventure Path where I didn't actually know what the monster was, even after reading what was in the Monster Manual. That was one of the great failings of 4e and a major contributor to my exit.

 

[Mercule]

• You get XP like 3E by defeating monsters and traps.

This is the only one that made me scratch my head. 3e had a party level vs. foe level table that was a bit of a pain, IMO. The playtest had flat awards (that may or may not be indicative of the final product). All editions gave XP for defeating monsters. Traps may have been optional in AD&D, but it was mentioned a few times. I played in more AD&D games that awarded XP for traps than for gold.

I'd say hybrid, on this one. Start with AD&D flat awards. Remove XP for gold (probably not missed, anyway). Add/retain XP for traps/hazards.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

I think the abandonment of Roles and the same Power system for all classes are the biggest differences between Next and 4E. That's why I think the New Coke comparison to 4E is appealing. That doesn't necessarily mean D&D Next is going to be 3E lite. My play test did have that old school AD&D feel to it with a lot of improvisation. That's something that to me 4E lacked.

IME even old school players in 4E just used the powers on their character sheet instead of coming up with new and interesting ideas. These same players were doing that in Next which was fun. I say that as someone who has played and DM'ed 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. I like elements from all and if the Next gets the right mixture of all three then it could be pretty awesome.