D&D 5E My D&D Next Experience at DDXP

[Grazzt]

When we have our convention here almost no one is playing 4e. Most are playing White Wolf, Cyberpunk, Pathfinder, or 3e. The ads for more players at the local gaming stores, and the community events for D&D have a real high 3e percentage. 3E seems to be the most popular D&D edition over here, but that might be a regional thing.

Same here. Not so much Cyberpunk though (that I remember seeing lately), but definitely PF, 3.x, White Wolf, and Warhammer (lots of Warhammer around here). Very little if any 4e that I've seen.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'll reserve final judgement till I see actual mechanics, but this really concerns me that WotC is throwing out the 4e baby with the bath water.

Trying to outdo Pathfinder by going back to 3e era mechanics is a doomed business model. Those Pathfinder guys have it pretty good with Paizo, there is little reason for them to switch back. The 1e/2e superfans is an extremely small niche market who are mostly satisfied with the books they already have, and they also have Castles and Crusades and a horde of retroclones.

Unification is nice, and if you can make an edition that pulls back in some of those lapsed fans, great. I'm all for inclusion and making as many people happy as possible. But you MUST keep your 4e base happy, WotC.

Your bread and butter are the 4e fans. They're generating revenue and keeping your lights on now, WotC. Not in some marketer's hypothetical future vision of all D&D fans suddenly coming "home" again.

If you lose even half of those customers, I doubt you'll pick up enough returnees to make up the difference, and 5e will be DOA.

I wouldn't worry about this too much. From the sound of things, the 4e parts are more likely to be modular. Which makes sense when you think about it. They want to add more complex modular parts to a simple core, so it makes more sense to start with a 1e/Basic core and add options until you have 4e.

I think you have to distinguish between 4e fans and hardcore 4e fans. The former group will probably be willing to give 5e a fair shake; depending on the mechanics, and how far they diverge from 4e, the latter group might not. The hardcore fans of any edition are (IMO) the exception rather than the rule. They're the ones that are most likely to be left behind, because they're a relatively small group and have a long list of deal-breakers that make it difficult for a designer to satisfy them while still keeping everyone else happy. (Note, not everyone who doesn't convert is a hardcore fan; many non-hardcore may have stuck with 3e (for example) because they decided they enjoy it more than 4e, but will still be willing to try 5e and see if they like that more.)

As long as they make a game that pleases most peoples' gaming sensibilities, I think they'll have a hit on their hands regardless of whether or not they leave out rule X.

 

[mkill]

For example, one could build a small value-added domain/sphere effect into spells, and just make sure the cleric has access to it under the right circumstances? (This is basically what I do in my homebrew game.)

I was thinking something much more simple. You don't put "Cure X Wounds" on the spell list. Instead, 1st-level Clerics get their spell slots, and one use of "Cure Light Wounds" per day. As they go up in levels, they get more spell slots, and more Cures. If you want more healing, spend feats on it or pick the healing domain (or both).

That way, Clerics don't get under pressure to play the healbot. I'd argue that for most parties, an active cleric with buffs and save-or-dies is more effective anyway.

 

[Dragonblade]

Fact that 5E is coming, and coming soon/now, says otherwise.

Yes and no. WotC effectively lost half their customer base to Pathfinder and various OGL clones and they want them back. 5e is an attempt to get them back.

I applaud that goal if it results in better D&D for everyone. But I think getting even half those players back will be a challenge no matter what 5e looks like. And if it comes at the expense of the customers they currently have, then I would question whether they have accomplished anything at all.

I hope I'm wrong and they make everyone happy.

 

[Raith5]

I wouldn't worry about this too much. From the sound of things, the 4e parts are more likely to be modular. Which makes sense when you think about it. They want to add more complex modular parts to a simple core, so it makes more sense to start with a 1e/Basic core and add options until you have 4e.

I have problems with the premise that 4th is complex and previous editions of D&D are simple. It makes 4th ed sound like the Kama sutra!

I just dont think it that complicated a system. I have seen people with little gaming experience understand and play it quite quickly. It alienated (too) many play styles, to be sure, they changed too many archetypes (like druids etc) and some players found it hard to accept the high fantasy assumptions of it, but the underlying mechanics and structure are pretty simple and uniform. 4th ed is just a different kind of simplicity.

 

[Ainamacar]

I was thinking something much more simple. You don't put "Cure X Wounds" on the spell list. Instead, 1st-level Clerics get their spell slots, and one use of "Cure Light Wounds" per day. As they go up in levels, they get more spell slots, and more Cures. If you want more healing, spend feats on it or pick the healing domain (or both).

That way, Clerics don't get under pressure to play the healbot. I'd argue that for most parties, an active cleric with buffs and save-or-dies is more effective anyway.

That certainly could work as well. I see the healbot issue as one of supply and demand. One can carefully limit the supply (as you suggest) to prevent the healbot effect. This doesn't actually reduce demand, but it does make badgering the cleric for healing every round pointless. I, however, also think it's sufficient to lessen the relative demand on the cleric by making sure other classes have healing abilities, so even if the cleric has increased supply from spontaneous casting or spell preparation there is less pressure to use it any given round. Both approaches have implications for other parts of the game, of course, and aren't mutually exclusive. 4e both spreads healing around and put pretty firm limits on it.

My primary goal for clerics and priests (besides basic mechanical competence) is robust customization based on deity, so it is natural for me to try and address healing issues in that same mold. My suggestion may be more complex, but the goal is quite a bit larger than just letting the player customize their healing capabilities. I also admit a preference toward pre-4e spells, so the notion of cure as not-a-spell is a little unsatisfying to me despite its practicality.

In any case, that some solution is implemented is more important to me than its details. We'll see what the playtest brings!

 

[Number48]

Back to interrogating the playtesters. Now, without asking specifics, did you get a good feel from your character sheet what on it was from race, class or theme?

 

[Charleois]

As far as playability, that entirely depends on the rule modules. The the base game really tires to capture a 1E/2E feel; I left that style of play behind a long time ago, and have never really looked back.

I wonder how close this new stuff is to Essentials. Even Essentials though was built within a wider system of great variety of options for actions.

 

[pemerton]

Monte is an excellent DM and he made the adventure fun and engaging. We won the day, kicking a lot of orc butt through luck, bold tactics, and good ideas. That said, a good DM can make just about any system enjoyable, for a while at least. About mid-way through I started to get bored with my character (and I normally love rogues) and my mind wandered.

Monte Cook has always been characterised as a good GM. If you got bored in his game, that makes me worry about the system.

Monte kept trying to reinforce that we could do anything and not worry about what our character sheets said, but ultimately what we did we didn't particularly do well.

A familiar experience for me from classic D&D play. Especially at low levels.

The base game seems very targeted towards a particular group

there was definitely an edition that seemed to be the "go to" edition for rules.

The the base game really tires to capture a 1E/2E feel; I left that style of play behind a long time ago, and have never really looked back.

This confirms the impression that I've been getting to date from the designers' comments.

 

[pemerton]

this really concerns me that WotC is throwing out the 4e baby with the bath water.

<snip>

Unification is nice, and if you can make an edition that pulls back in some of those lapsed fans, great. I'm all for inclusion and making as many people happy as possible. But you MUST keep your 4e base happy, WotC.

I've been having these thoughts for a while - that the unity edition seems to be a reactionary edition.

I wouldn't worry about this too much. From the sound of things, the 4e parts are more likely to be modular. Which makes sense when you think about it. They want to add more complex modular parts to a simple core, so it makes more sense to start with a 1e/Basic core and add options until you have 4e.

I think you have to distinguish between 4e fans and hardcore 4e fans.

<snip>

As long as they make a game that pleases most peoples' gaming sensibilities, I think they'll have a hit on their hands regardless of whether or not they leave out rule X.

I probably count as a hardcore 4e fan - it brought me back to GMing D&D after close to 20 years away from GMing it, and playing it only on and off in that time. And I'm curious about how modules will be designed that turn a Basic or simple AD&D game into a 4e one. Classic D&D is built around assumptions about operational play, for example, that don't figure in 4e. In other words, 4e is much more than just balanced maths.

These WotC people are clever designers, but can they square the circle?

 

[Tallifer]

I'll reserve final judgement till I see actual mechanics, but this really concerns me that WotC is throwing out the 4e baby with the bath water.

Trying to outdo Pathfinder by going back to 3e era mechanics is a doomed business model. Those Pathfinder guys have it pretty good with Paizo, there is little reason for them to switch back. The 1e/2e superfans is an extremely small niche market who are mostly satisfied with the books they already have, and they also have Castles and Crusades and a horde of retroclones.

Unification is nice, and if you can make an edition that pulls back in some of those lapsed fans, great. I'm all for inclusion and making as many people happy as possible. But you MUST keep your 4e base happy, WotC.

Your bread and butter are the 4e fans. They're generating revenue and keeping your lights on now, WotC. Not in some marketer's hypothetical future vision of all D&D fans suddenly coming "home" again.

If you lose even half of those customers, I doubt you'll pick up enough returnees to make up the difference, and 5e will be DOA.

I have the same fears as you do. I think the ship has already sailed on all those fanatics of Pathfinder and the Old School Renaissance. They have the best systems possible for what they like. I think the problem is that Hasbro is putting pressure on the Wizards: would that the Wizards had never sold out to Hasbro!

 

[bryce0lynch]

I also heard, a the con, that Monte was just going through the motions.

As die-hard 4E players I would encourage you to not judge the game by its playtest. The optional modules should bring you back to the 4E style that you enjoy, however that style has to be built upon something, namely the game we saw at the con.

You are in much the same mindspace I was prior to the con and while the con settled my anxiety it seems to have heightened yours. Give the process a chance and make sure they hear your feedback that the optional modules need to incorporate you desired play style.

 

[Number48]

I have the same fears as you do. I think the ship has already sailed on all those fanatics of Pathfinder and the Old School Renaissance. They have the best systems possible for what they like. I think the problem is that Hasbro is putting pressure on the Wizards: would that the Wizards had never sold out to Hasbro!

Not as much as you might think for us Pathfinders. About a month before they announced 5E, I started mulling over making my own hybrid game. I love Pathfinder but I do like dynamic combats and monster-as-different approach of 4E, not to mention that I would go ahead and fix the upper level problem as long as I was at it. So some of us were already prepared for a new edition. I don't know the intricacies of publishing under the OGL, but I'm not sure Paizo CAN make a truly new edition of Pathfinder. They might be married to the mechanics of 3.5.

The big question is if 5E really will give us the PF feel while gaining some mechanical benefits of 4E and giving us a truly new edition, or if 5E is going to be some kind of glitchy 1E clone?

 

[Hassassin]

I have the same fears as you do. I think the ship has already sailed on all those fanatics of Pathfinder and the Old School Renaissance. They have the best systems possible for what they like. I think the problem is that Hasbro is putting pressure on the Wizards: would that the Wizards had never sold out to Hasbro!

You may be right about "fanatics", but I doubt they are a large part of those who currently play 3e or PF.

Personally, I play a hybrid, but because PF only fixed a few of the problems I have with 3e (and made some worse), I'm more than ready to switch if something better appears.

It's not that I don't play 4e because 3e/PF is the ultimate game, but because 4e was simply worse for what I want from D&D.

 

[Tallifer]

Heh. My old fashioned mannerisms confuse: fanatics is just the unabbreviated word for fans.

 

[Osgood]

Fact that 5E is coming, and coming soon/now, says otherwise.

Keeping the lights on and thriving are two different things. If there weren't 4E players, there would be no 5E because D&D would have been shelved by now.

 

[Osgood]

Back to interrogating the playtesters. Now, without asking specifics, did you get a good feel from your character sheet what on it was from race, class or theme?

Yes, each set of abilities was in it's won section. I had to look in three different places to know if I had bonuses for anything.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I have problems with the premise that 4th is complex and previous editions of D&D are simple. It makes 4th ed sound like the Kama sutra!

I just dont think it that complicated a system. I have seen people with little gaming experience understand and play it quite quickly. It alienated (too) many play styles, to be sure, they changed too many archetypes (like druids etc) and some players found it hard to accept the high fantasy assumptions of it, but the underlying mechanics and structure are pretty simple and uniform. 4th ed is just a different kind of simplicity.

I agree that 4e is ridiculously easy to teach. I've done it myself.

However, I'm talking about character build options here. A 4e fighter isn't horribly complex, but it certainly looks that way when compared to a 1e fighter. Hence, start with the 1e fighter and build up to the 4e fighter.

Even the 4e wizard, with four spells of varying frequency, is more complex than the 1e wizard with one daily spell.

It isn't that 4e is complex. It's that, at least from the perspective of character building, 1e characters are very simple. You have plenty of choices to make when building a 4e character, whereas you rarely do with a 1e character.

It's much easier to add options (choices) to a simple (non-choice) frame, than it is to deconstruct something into something more simple. They've already stated that the fighter will have the option to gain powers instead of simple numerical bonuses, so clearly the 4e fighter is in the works.

 

[Tilenas]

One happens to be a mathematician, and she feels that spellcasters are at a distinct statistical disadvantage using the mechanics presented.

This is the single best thing I could possibly hear about the basic rules.

 

[Number48]

Yes, each set of abilities was in it's won section. I had to look in three different places to know if I had bonuses for anything.

Would it be breaking NDA to indicate if those 3 areas were about equal in size?