D&D 5E (2014) New D&D Next Packet Is Available

[Consonant Dude]

If your post had contained even the faintest glimmer of critical thinking or detail-based analysis I probably wouldn't have commented on it. If its such a doomed product, I don't see why you don't just move on to something else; its really quite easy to filter out 'DND Next' related posts on this web forum.

I'm interested in the direction DnD is taking. Now is actually the time to talk about it. It's only a doomed product to me if it's the final release and I don't like it.

As far as detail-based analysis... what would be the point? I've said what I wanted to say but I can try differently: I don't like how they add myriad of details and insist on locking things at the expense of flexibility and conciseness. I think there are good things about every edition, even though I have my own preferences. But I'm disappointed that they have hinted at learning lessons from older editions, when I don't think they have. Shorter rulebooks and gameplay that is looser would benefit DnD Next, IMO.

Yeah, I know some people disagree. I'm fine with that.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I preferred the skills not being tied to stats in the name of "more than one way to skin a cat." Best example I can think of is Intimidate - it could work in so many ways, and I'd prefer if it were left to the players and DM to adjudicate based on the situation. Rulings Not Rules, right?

Plus, it would certainly help the socially gimped classes, like Fighters, if they could put their (typically) "good" stats to use in social situations.

That said, I definitely prefer the shorter list of broad skills that 4e used; it was the first edition of the game where I didn't feel the need to houserule extra skills for everyone. Characters felt competent in a sufficient number of situations, though I still houseruled fighters an extra skill, and generally ignored the class lists.

I view the Next system as a compromise between that (since most things will be done via ability check) and the overly complicated and limiting system that was used in 3.x. I still find that it leans too far toward narrowly defining what you are good at, but it's a far cry better than having a huge open-ended list that only serves to define what you can't do. That is, however, more a result of bounded accuracy than it is the design of the system itself. On the plus side, at least it doesn't use fiddly skill ranks. Good riddance to that.

I'd like to see a 4e-style skill module, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[VinylTap]

It would help if it looked like they knew what they were doing. Changing so many things around seemingly randomly doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. But fair enough.

I think you're coming into the play-test with incorrect assumptions as to how the Next design team is using these alphas and how they fit into the grand scheme of their overall ongoing play-testing practices. Their internal rules most likely look very different from the public play-tests. But the benefit of the internal playtests is you don't need to present them in the same semi-polished format, for several obvious reasons. You believe that the playtest should be doing something that it was never even attempting to do, which is most likely where your frustrations stem from.

Its a quick way for them to throw out a bunch of 'out of the box' ideas and get a ton of feedback on them. But you have to put those ideas into a sort of semi-playable frame of a game, so people can actually get real 'in-game' feedback on it. Now to keep their life sane, the designers throw a lot of 'placeholders' in there, both in names, and spells, because its not worth putting a ton of polish into these things, because you might be throwing them out the window in 2 weeks (because they generated a ton of bad feedback). But if you don't get the idea out there for people to play with (remember theory-gaming on forums isn't the best way to look at these things, from a research stand-point) you don't get the solid feedback you need.

Now, I have no problem with people going 'OK, this probably won't work for this this and/or this reason' or 'I think the game would be better if they presented the information in such-and-such form'. But what seems to be happening is people are using these play tests (and i'm not trying to single out you, or be confrontational) as an excuse to derail these threads into talking about how 'NEXT IS DOOMED TO FAILURE '. Now, people have the right to express those feelings, I just don't think these threads are the place for it. Ultimately, posts like this are very far off topic, but people don't always see it like that. There are a few 'NEXT IS DOOMED TO FAILURE" threads already thriving in this forum, I wish people would keep that topic where it belongs.

 

[Ratskinner]

It would help if it looked like they knew what they were doing. Changing so many things around seemingly randomly doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. But fair enough.

Don't forget that these playtests also represent different combinations of possibly optional rules. Seeming incoherencies between or within playtests may be intentional as they are trying to suss out what works best and how.

The core rules are purportedly fairly "fixed" at this point. Although where the lines for "core", "Basic", "Standard", and "Advanced" are drawn is unclear.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Okay. I am wondering if many of you are reading the same packet I am.

While some things strike me as overly complex, a step backwards, or dumb or irritating in some way, those might just be matters of personal taste. I really don't like the Ranger getting pushed so hard towards spellcasting as his primary schtick, but guess what, I can live with that because lots of other stuff is hitting all the right notes.

Taken as a whole, this playtest packet, and the developing D&DNext game, for me is a MASSIVE evolution in the RIGHT direction. I played 3rd/3.5 for its entire run - and gave up in frustration. I played 4th for its entire life - and gave up in frustration. I look at D&D Next like a rough-stone-rolling, yes its got a few jagged edges and rough spots, but as it rolls along those flaws are getting smoothed out – and it is without question rolling in the right direction.

In my opinion, this still-unfinished game is VASTLY better than 3rd and 4th edition. It appears the worst of those editions has been cut out, leaving a base chassis and an efficient engine that runs pretty damn well. My group is already converted and will never go back to the horrors of editions past. Each of us has our individual nitpicks and irks, but we also recognize those things are probably personal preferences, and it's refreshing to be playing a game that seems to be firing on all cylinders.

Beginning with Bounded Accuracy, to advantage/disadvantage, to the approach they're taking with the Fighter, many of the concepts and innovations of this new D&D game have been design GRAND SLAMS that inject pure oxygen into the old, stale and sometimes toxic air of 3e/4e. The knee-jerk histrionics and infantile whining I'm hearing I think (and hope) are just people griping about their personal expectations not being met, and not a general consensus on D&DNext.

So I figured I'd add one "thumbs up" vote to the chorus of un-constructive criticism I'm hearing.


Oh, and by the way, this Paladin, my favorite D&D class, oozes awesome.

 

[Salamandyr]

It would help if it looked like they knew what they were doing. Changing so many things around seemingly randomly doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. But fair enough.



Divorcing skills from abilities is more complex?

Wanna do stuff? Pick appropriate ability and appropriate skill with DM's help. Roll a d20.

Yes, the current way is simpler than that...and no, I'm not saying your way is impossibly complex, just that this playtest version is simpler.

For instance, consider this hypothetical...the player of a fighter wants to break down a door.

Skills divorced from stats...
DM: Make a strength check to break down the door.

Fighter: I have the Athletics skill, can I use that in this case?

DM: (thinks for a second) sure, that sounds right. Go ahead.

Current method.

DM: Make a strength check to break down the door.

Fighter: Cool, I've got the "breaking stuff" skill, so I get to roll my skill die.

The advantage to the current method is its simplicity. There's no question, when it comes time to break stuff, the fighter gets to roll his skill die. By contrast, the other way requires a judgement call by the DM each time task arises. It's more complex. It has its advantages too; you need fewer, more broadly applicable skills, and the flexibility may allow for some creative play (say using Athletics with Charisma to impress some race fans). It also has the potential to be more limiting in the hands of a novice, or unimaginative DM.

They both have their strong points, and they both have their weaknesses. One is more complex than the other. I think they're looking at both ways to see which is better. Personally, I think I'm coming around to prefer a few (like, REALLY few), broad skills that can apply to various ability scores, but if they go this way, I can live with it.

 

[Li Shenron]

I preferred the skills not being tied to stats in the name of "more than one way to skin a cat." Best example I can think of is Intimidate - it could work in so many ways, and I'd prefer if it were left to the players and DM to adjudicate based on the situation. Rulings Not Rules, right?

Agree completely.

I used to be a fan of the opposite, but at some point it was an article by some WotC designer that opened my mind, and still they are now turning away from that.

"Skills divorced from abilities" means that you can have any character take for instance the Climb skill and expect to make it useful, not just the strong character. Sure, to climb a vertical rope or wall probably will always call for a Strength check, but maybe climbing a branchy tree or a piece of furniture, or a wall with lots of protruding features may be a Dex check, and climbing/hiking a mountain without getting exhausted will be a Con check... all rolls that can benefit from the Climb bonus or skill die.

It actually makes it more possible to take any skills you want if you can expect not to always rely to the same ability score. If it's always Strength, there is very little incentive for a PC without high Str to take Climb, and every PC tends to clutter her skills choices around her 1-2 highest scores.

 

[Salamandyr]

Wulfgar76, I too heartily give them a thumbs up, and an "attaboy".

I want to push back a little against an assertion you made though. I really don't see spellcasting as being pushed as the rangers primary "schtick". They cast spells, true. With one exception, they always have in every edition, just like the paladin. I think what has happened is that ranger and paladin spell use has gone from an afterthought to being a valid class feature. But their "primary" schtick still seems to be what it's always been--combat ability, favored enemies and tracking in the case of the ranger.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Wulfgar76, I too heartily give them a thumbs up, and an "attaboy".
But their "primary" schtick still seems to be what it's always been--combat ability, favored enemies and tracking in the case of the ranger.

You are probably right. I never liked how in editions past Ranger spells seemed 'tacked on' to the class. And I always felt Rangers shouldn't 'cast magic' in the first place. So when I saw that the new ranger basically had Favored Enemy and Druid Spells, and not much else, I dug in my heels and wanted to cry foul - but then I forced my self to pause and consider all of the classes, and the direction each is taking, and realize that my beef with the ranger is really a minor quibble I can easily live with.

I tire of hearing 'They totally blew X, I'm so done with this game!'

 

[mlund]

I preferred the skills not being tied to stats in the name of "more than one way to skin a cat." Best example I can think of is Intimidate - it could work in so many ways, and I'd prefer if it were left to the players and DM to adjudicate based on the situation. Rulings Not Rules, right?

Exactly. Sometimes these sorts of regressions are especially disheartening because they undermine core principles that were used to try to sell the play-test / DNDNext concept at the outset.

The idea of putting every task into a silo with a single applicable skill and ability score is fundamentally wrong - it's poor mechanically, destitute from a role-playing perspective, reneges on promotional rhetoric, and undermines the premise of not being bound to low-performing sacred cows instead of the core of the D&D Experience.

Skills need to less of a closed box with a fixed bonus in it and more of a story description of a personal talent that players can leverage in a circumstance.

At least they got rid of Use Rope, anyway.

- Marty Lund