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

[BobTheNob]

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.

Agreed, especially the second paragraph. SO many threads where people argued that under 4e you "could do whatever you liked", yet for all that I encouraged players to do so, they will still just used the power that were on the sheet in front of them. You experience was exactly mine

That said, I do agree with the article. Im not a 4e fanboy, that game just lost me. The analogy that 4e was the "New Coke" of the D&D world was a good one : looked great on paper, but they should have done there research. That said, I do think 4e brought some innovations to the game that were pretty good, and it does seem like when they are "bringing all the old versions together" that 4e is contributing the smallest part of the pie.

 

[Keldryn]

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.

You're missing the forest for the trees here.

The formula of d20 + modifiers vs DC is essentially just a refinement of how attack rolls worked in all pre-3e versions of D&D, and expanding the idea to be used for all checks. Older versions of D&D used charts to determine the target values, but all of those charts can be easily expressed as d20 + modifiers >= 20, and that goes for saving throws as well as attack rolls.

d20 + ability modifer + skill bonus vs DC looks like 3e in implementation if you're focusing at a very micro level.

Take a big step back and contrast skills in 3e versus 2e non-weapon proficiencies and BECMI general skills:

3e skills:

• select skills from a definitive list of skills
• what you can do with a skill is fairly rigidly defined
• the base ability score has a strong influence on the skill at low level, but quickly becomes overshadowed by skill bonuses from level gains and other modifiers
• skills are purchased from a pool of skill points, which in turn are primarily determined by your class
• character class restricts your skill choices through the designation of class skills and cross-class skills
• total skill check modifiers can get complicated: ability modifier, skill ranks, synergy bonus, feat bonus, racial bonus, armor penalty, magical enhancements
• character sheets tend to have long lists of skills

2e non-weapon proficiencies:

• proficiencies are selected from an exhaustive list which was frequently extended over the course of the edition (unlike 3e, which very rarely added any new skills)
• what you can do with a proficiency is loosely defined
• the base ability score is the primary determinant of success or failure of a skill check; skill bonuses from level gains have a generally small impact
• proficiencies are purchased with slots, the number of which are determined by your class (with far less variation between classes than in 3e)
• character class restricts your proficiency choices outside of the General group and your class group, by requiring you to spend one additional slot to purchase a proficiency
• proficiency check modifiers are usually very simple: bonus or penalty inherent to the proficiency itself, bonus from additional slots spent
• character sheets tend to have fairly short lists of proficiencies

BECMI skills:

• select skills from a flexible list of suggested skills (players are encouraged to come up with their own)
• what you can do with a skill is loosely defined
• the base ability score is the primary determinant of success or failure of a skill check; skill bonuses from level gains have a generally small impact
• every class gets the same number of skill "points" to spend on acquiring or improving skills
• skills are equally available to members of all character classes
• skill check modifiers are very simple: bonus from additional "points" spent
• character sheets tend to have short lists of skills

D&D Next skills: (based on the playtest, of course)

• the skills mentioned in the package are suggested examples and are clearly not from a definitive list
• what you can do with a skill or check is loosely defined, to the point where a trained skill isn't necessarily associated with a specific ability score
• the base ability score and skill training both have a significant influence on the skill check. With suggested automatic success when the ability score is >= DC + 5, I'll give the base ability score the overall edge.
• classes have the same access to skills (through backgrounds), although some classes (such as the rogue) get bonus skills
• check modifiers are simple: ability modifier, trained skill bonus
• character sheets tend to have short lists of trained skills

In terms of the overall concept, D&D Next skills are by far the closest to BECMI general skills than they are to a system in any other edition of D&D. At this level, they're about as far from the 3e approach as they can get without making them completely unassociated with ability scores. You can re-write any of the skill checks into the form d20 + modifiers >= DC, with the only difference being how ability score modifiers for skills are determined in each edition (it would be ability score minus 10 in 2e and BECMI).


From what I've seen so far, DDN resembles 3e only at this superficial level of using the consistent d20 + modifiers >= DC mechanic. When you step back and look at the overall context into which that mechanic is used, the game looks much more like a modernized Basic/Expert D&D or a stripped-down 4e Essentials. At least it does to me.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I think the abandonment of Roles and the same Power system for all classes are the biggest differences between Next and 4E.

I wouldn't say roles have been abandoned so much as loosened-- a Slayer Fighter is a Striker, while a Guardian Fighter is a Defender. The Cleric of Pelor is a Leader, while the Cleric of Moradin is a Leader/Defender. (Almost a Paladin.) The Rogue is a Striker and the Wizard is a Controller.

So it isn't that roles are no longer prevalent, but that the relationship between class and role has changed so that a given class can choose between different roles or straddle two roles with less complication and potential dilution than 4e Hybrid.

I would expect that the discussion of roles and the classification of classes/themes by role will be included in more polished materials.

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.

I find the repeated comparisons to 3.X to be baffling. If anything, I would say 3.X is the edition Next resembles least, with the possible exception of AD&D. I see it as a hybrid of Classic and Essentials, with the implementation of 3.X-style multiclassing (boo! hiss!) forthcoming.

I really hope they either change their mind there and provide something more akin to AD&D's system, or find an alternate solution to the problems that 3.X multiclassing causes.

 

[Nellisir]

... was a disaster on the same scale of New Coke and Highlander 2."

There was no Highlander 2. Says so right on the tin for Highlander. There Can Be Only One.
Not 2. Never 2. Only one.

 

[nnms]

Remove XP for gold (probably not missed, anyway).

XP for gold is key to OD&D, Basic & 1E play. In fact, in those games, it is the majority source of XP.

This creates a particular style of play when combined with wondering monsters-- who rarely, if ever, have treasure types as good as "lairs" do.

If the majority of XP comes from treasure rather than killing monsters and there's a constant stream of wandering monsters in most places you go, you best be focused on your goals rather than fighting monsters.

It's actually a pretty slick piece of game design and a hall mark of older approaches to the game. It was mostly abandoned in 2E and completely excised in 3.x.

So that's why it's in a list of what I consider 3.x characteristics.

I understand why WotC wants everyone to not see that the game is just a slimmed down version of 3.x given the goal of uniting all editions, but I'd like to challenge everyone to playtest 5E through part of the Caves of Chaos and then break out the Pathfinder Beginner Box and do the same thing. You should have an "aha" moment.

 

[pemerton]

I think that the 4e Monster Manual is probably the best example of such a book ever written.

I'm a big fan too, although there are issues with the maths (and solo design) at paragon and above.

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.

See, I've never found this. The humanoids all have strong supporting flavour. Likewise the extra-planer creatures and the dragons.

I haven't used as many of the "animals" and beasts but those I have seem to have the info that I need. (And spiders have the best flavour text they've ever had - never before has the entry on spiders given me the history of Lolth as a god of fate!)

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.

May I ask which creature that was?

 

[Dire Bare]

I wouldn't say roles have been abandoned so much as loosened-- a Slayer Fighter is a Striker, while a Guardian Fighter is a Defender. The Cleric of Pelor is a Leader, while the Cleric of Moradin is a Leader/Defender. (Almost a Paladin.) The Rogue is a Striker and the Wizard is a Controller.

So it isn't that roles are no longer prevalent, but that the relationship between class and role has changed so that a given class can choose between different roles or straddle two roles with less complication and potential dilution than 4e Hybrid.

I would expect that the discussion of roles and the classification of classes/themes by role will be included in more polished materials.

From what I've seen so far, I agree with you that roles are still there, although they are more "loose" than in 4E.

However, and I do think this is significant, I think the terminology is moving back into the realm of designer-speak and will no longer be explicit in the game as player-speak. In other words, when Mearls designs a new class or theme, he will consider which of the four roles it will fill . . . but when you read about it in the latest 5e sourcebook, the new class or theme will not be labeled with a role.[/QUOTE]

 

[pemerton]

From what I've seen so far, I agree with you that roles are still there, although they are more "loose" than in 4E.

However, and I do think this is significant, I think the terminology is moving back into the realm of designer-speak and will no longer be explicit in the game as player-speak. In other words, when Mearls designs a new class or theme, he will consider which of the four roles it will fill . . . but when you read about it in the latest 5e sourcebook, the new class or theme will not be labeled with a role.

You're probably right. I don't get the rationale, though. Is the point to make it harder for new players to work out how the game functions?

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Which is why imo the 4e Monster's Vault was the perfection of the system. The solid statblocks that 4e was known for combined with solid fluff text.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Unless you have concrete suggestions for interesting tactics supported by easily understood mechanics, you can have all the fluff you want and a white dragon is still a red dragon with a different coat of paint, a kobold is a weak human in a lizard suit, and a gnoll is a big human in a dog suit.

Yes, the 4e MM is weak on the descriptions, and it is fair to ding it on that. But it was extremely strong in other ways, in particular, why fighting monster X would likely be completely different from fighting somewhat similar monster Y.