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

[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.