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

[Iosue]

FWIW, here's a more positive review of Monte Cook's game at the DDXP playtest.

 

[Osgood]

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

For my character two sections were mostly equal, one was about 50% larger. My neighbor's sheet had a lot more empty space and the ratios looked a little different (but I didn't study it).

 

[pauljathome]

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.

Doesn't this require something like Healing Surges to be effective?

If your "typical" party (ftr, mage. rogue, Non healbot cleric) has 1 CLW a day then the day is going to be VERY short.

Surely, either SOMEBODY heals, EVERYBODY heals, or parties return home as soon as they get more than very mildly injured. I don't see any plausible alternatives.

 

[Hassassin]

Doesn't this require something like Healing Surges to be effective?

If your "typical" party (ftr, mage. rogue, Non healbot cleric) has 1 CLW a day then the day is going to be VERY short.

Surely, either SOMEBODY heals, EVERYBODY heals, or parties return home as soon as they get more than very mildly injured. I don't see any plausible alternatives.

How about one CLW and a few minute-long prayers that restore more hp?

I'd like to see in-combat healing be the exception rather than the norm.

 

[Gamer McSmartypants]

...

 

[Agamon]

Another blog post about the con. Apparently the writer thought the core had potential, but also had to sit next to a player named Whiney McWhinerson.

Also, apparently con playtesters were invited to take part in the Friends and Family playtest. Wow, jealous!

 

[drunkenmonk]

My point? I'm kind of a 3.5 grognard who drifted away from WotC, but if D&D Next is something I like, I'll go back to it (assuming I get back into a group again). And I think that there's a large percentage of people who left 4E who can be won back if the game is really cool. How much, I'm not sure - although, I know that there will be some people who can't be switched from 3.5/Pathfinder just as there may not be people who'll switch from 4E to D&D Next.

I can only speak for myself and my gaming group, but I for one, can't wait for 5E. It's got me all giddy and excited. I feel like a teenage schoolgirl with backstage tickets to a Justin Beiber concert. I haven't been this excited to buy anything in a long time. The fact that I am excited to happily spend money says a lot for a frugal tightwad like me. Normally I hold onto money like a mother would cling onto her young.

Mostly I play Pathfinder and White Wolf now, but I miss D&D. There is something about the iconic D&D brand and the settings I just love. It's one of those feelings, like eating a chocolate doughnut, or the first kiss with a new lover.

My gaming group will bring out AD&D occasionally, but we just don't like most of 4e.

There are some really cool things in 4E that I will house rule in, but I'm not a fan of other things. In order to make it "playable" for our group we had to house rule it so much, it really didn't resemble 4E anymore.

I would love to get back into the fold and be running the newest edition of D&D. I would love to freshen it up a bit. From what I see this edition will have everything we need.

 

[Astrosicebear]

If indeed mathematically spellcasters are behind at lower levels, this could indicate a conscious choice for power creep, and be a good thing. We will have to see some hard rules before making a judgement call though. I haven't seen any other reports indicating that spellcasters felt weak, however.

 

[Henry]

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.

I wouldn't worry yet -- as the OP and others said, this was core rules, not modules included, and most of the 4E enhancements I'm assuming are add-ons.

 

[Nebulous]

Interesting thoughts, Thanks!

I think for certain things like healing they would be better off just developing separate standalone rules modules that groups can use instead of making some patchwork that no one will like.

You want to go whole hog on 4e style surges, use this module. If you want old school lethality and make healing a matter of magic and bed rest, use this module.

I can think of several ways I could make it work so I don't think its an impossible design challenge.

I agree, the deadliness needs options. and i mentioned this in other threads, the lethality of the game should be scalable. If that means that a Medusa statblock needs a Normal/Hard version, then so be it. Slowly turn to stone...or save or die? Two styles of gameplay, and two totally different groups that love or hate it. How do you appeal to both?

 

[Rechan]

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.

IMO if I don't like the fundamental rules that the game is built on, it doesn't matter what I add to it. The "Ability scores as saves" and "Opposing rolls" really soured me, and I have the feeling it would take a lot of work to tear those out of the system.

Hell, the only things I've seen that I liked are the Themes, magical items removed from the assumed math, and bonuses being dramatically reduced. (The Priest class separated from the Cleric sounds great, but that depends on execution).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And even though I played 4E up until about 6 months ago (when our group fizzled out), I always felt it was missing something. But, I still had a lot of fun 'cause of the group I was in (and our main DM is excellent).

Awww..thanks. Where were you when in the other thread when people spent 4 days blasting me for being a horrible DM? Ironically enough because I wasn't able to control my players and stop them from breaking the rules.

Also, I'm going to assume you meant that and didn't say it simply because you know I read these message boards.

As for the original topic. I really wish I had made it to DDXP. What I hear really does worry me. I like a number of old school ideas that I think worked better than 3e or 4e, so I'm glad they are going back that direction for SOME things. But, it really sounds like they might be going too far in that direction. I agree with some other people here, it might be impossible to remove some old school assumptions simply by adding modules on top of the game.

I don't have faith that the Vancian system can be properly balanced. And it is core. Although, to be fair to the designers, what I've heard so far has been the same ideas I was throwing around in my head to try to balance 3e before 4e was announced.

Worse yet, I have a feeling that a modular game is going to cause MORE gaps in the community, rather than less. With the groups splitting into 50 groups based on their own personal group of modules they like instead of the 4 or 5 groups that exist now based around editions.

 

[Lidgar]

So, [speculation] Clerics have to choose between casting healing spells or being a contributor to the fight? [/speculation] If that's the case, yeah, that's something from older editions that doesn't need to come back again. (I expect no confirmation or denile here, of course).

Perhaps the reason they are now considering the Cleric/Priest split?

 

[Snapdragyn]

Worse yet, I have a feeling that a modular game is going to cause MORE gaps in the community, rather than less. With the groups splitting into 50 groups based on their own personal group of modules they like instead of the 4 or 5 groups that exist now based around editions.

I share this concern. I had trouble in 3.5 with conflict in groups over 'core only' or 'core + Complete series' or 'core + x, y, z' - now, if I understand correctly, they're going to have options included in the starting book? I can already see some DMs saying 'no modules allowed' or 'only x module allowed' or something, which will break the whole point of 'everyone playing their own edition at the same table'. I hope I'm proven wrong, but.... :/

 

[Cadfan]

Yeah, I remember the old days of wanting to join someone's game, and finding out that the DM was only comfortable with core material. I was really knowledgeable about 3e at the time, so I had a pretty good idea of what was broken and what wasn't... meaning that I was capable of self policing. And I usually wanted to try out newer material like the Swashbuckler or Scout. So I'd be stuck, knowing that what I wanted wasn't broken, but also knowing that I had no chance of convincing the DM of that fact since he'd just assume I was a munchkin for complaining about core only games.

I really hope we don't end up in a situation where I find myself thinking, "Hmm, I'd love to play a Warlock, but only if Tactical Module X is included. Or I'd like to play a ninja, but only if Skill Expansion Y is in the game."

 

[Snapdragyn]

Exactly, Cadfan. I loved the character rules diversity in 3.5, & often found myself stymied in groups. The irony was that despite being the one drawing the most attention for pushing group 'allowed rules' boundaries, I'm not a great optimizer & tended to end up w/ comparatively weak - which is to say, average powered - characters compared to the rest of the party who weren't drawing DM agro.

It took me months of cajoling, logical analysis, & offers of 1-on-1 PvP play-testing to finally get a DM to allow a warlock character into a group (they can do magic every round? OP! OP! OP!). Am I going to have to go through that again to be allowed to play a non-basic anything?

 

[Blastin]

couple of minor points I saw mentioned I thought I could say a bit more about.
One was on Races: I played human and dwarf. I thought the mechanics for the dwarf were fine/no big change. I really liked the mechanics for the human. The other races abilities were also cool from what I saw of their sheets.
Another was lethality: The first game no one died but we had multiple characters dropped and I liked the death mechanic. The second game my buddy got killed DEAD in one "very lucky" hobgoblin axe swing and another player's character got beat down as well and then saw the death mechanic used to its ultimate conclusion

 

[Gamer McSmartypants]

...

 

[Cadfan]

couple of minor points I saw mentioned I thought I could say a bit more about.
One was on Races: I played human and dwarf. I thought the mechanics for the dwarf were fine/no big change. I really liked the mechanics for the human. The other races abilities were also cool from what I saw of their sheets.
Another was lethality: The first game no one died but we had multiple characters dropped and I liked the death mechanic. The second game my buddy got killed DEAD in one "very lucky" hobgoblin axe swing and another player's character got beat down as well and then saw the death mechanic used to its ultimate conclusion

Do you mind if I ask which of the following you mean by "killed dead?"

1. Had full hp, got hit, died.
2. Was wounded, got hit, went all the way to dead without getting to use the bleeding out rules.

 

[Agamon]

Exactly, Cadfan. I loved the character rules diversity in 3.5, & often found myself stymied in groups. The irony was that despite being the one drawing the most attention for pushing group 'allowed rules' boundaries, I'm not a great optimizer & tended to end up w/ comparatively weak - which is to say, average powered - characters compared to the rest of the party who weren't drawing DM agro.

It took me months of cajoling, logical analysis, & offers of 1-on-1 PvP play-testing to finally get a DM to allow a warlock character into a group (they can do magic every round? OP! OP! OP!). Am I going to have to go through that again to be allowed to play a non-basic anything?

Shouldn't a DM be able to set the limits of his campaign regardless of the ruleset? A 1e DM should be able to say, no UA classes or NWP from WSG. A 2e Dm should be able to say no Giff or Thri-kreen PCs. This isn't a new thing and regardless of how the rules work, a DM should be able to set the limits of his game in DDN, too.