Oh My Goodness! That looks like D&D!

[TrippyHippy]

I've no doubt that people will pick away at the bones of the new playtest package (which they should), but as a long time D&D player I have to say, it's the first thing I have seen for a while that actually reminds me of a real D&D game at the core.

This isn't intended to be an edition war kickstarter, by the way, but the whole approach that I have seen in this packet is something that I'd actually want to get behind. I am pleased that:

1) Fighters have fighting styles that give them variety and potence.
2) HPs are down to a sensible level - the max HD value for first level is precisely how I'd do them.
3) The clear breakdown for all the aspects of character generation and skill use.
4) Clear difrentiation for the Race, Class, Background and now Specialities.
5) It truly feels like a D&D game.

I still think a lot of editing, etc, needs to be done to improve clarity - but it is just a playtest. I also think the expansion of the game into other classes could yet screw things up (especially, if we get too many Classes that have no archetypal resonance). As it stands, the game is really just the bare basics - but it is a step in right direction in my view. If it continues to develop like this, I'll buy it.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I overall have to agree. It looks like a fairly elegant system I would not mind playing.

I am sure people will be exploiting holes, and I see a lot of min-maxing potential, but it does not seem to be too strong as the game seems to be trying hard to limit things.

For example skills. If the top is +7 that is very nice, indeed. Some kind of bonus, topping out at about +12 or so, unless magical items will give bonuses also.

It looks like a playable system.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I agree as well. My first gut reaction was that it was "too 4e" compared to the first packet, but after looking at it for a bit and making a few characters, I really love it. Of course it feels really incomplete and a little imbalanced, but I'm actually blown away by all that is in there.

 

[Tovec]

With VERY limited experience with 2e and most of my knowledge of DnD being 3e and PF.. I have to say it looks unlike DnD to me.

I'm not sure what I should make of that. I never really played the old school of the game so for me that is nothing to reach for.

It certainly doesn't resemble what I call DnD, which I assume is the goal but I think it is also something they need to be careful about. So far there is nothing, as a 3e player, to entice me to play. Obviously its still early so that might change but that's where I'm sitting right now.

Again, I want to say this isn't necessarily bad or a flaw it is just how I happen to see the packet so far.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1) Fighters have fighting styles that give them variety and potence.
2) HPs are down to a sensible level - the max HD value for first level is precisely how I'd do them.
3) The clear breakdown for all the aspects of character generation and skill use.
4) Clear difrentiation for the Race, Class, Background and now Specialities.
5) It truly feels like a D&D game.

Aside from the watch-out-that-housecat-could-kill-you hps, how is any of that like classic D&D?

Classic D&D fighters didn't have style, they had weapons, weapon specialization post-UA.

3 & 4 are points of presentation, and no edition of D&D has ever failed to make clear the difference between class, kits, specialization, etc. Except maybe, when the elf was a class.

Not that I'm disagreeing strongly, I felt the 1st packet had a lot of that paleo-D&D feel, myself...

 

[Teataine]

With VERY limited experience with 2e and most of my knowledge of DnD being 3e and PF.. I have to say it looks unlike DnD to me.

I'm not sure what I should make of that. I never really played the old school of the game so for me that is nothing to reach for.

It certainly doesn't resemble what I call DnD, which I assume is the goal but I think it is also something they need to be careful about. So far there is nothing, as a 3e player, to entice me to play. Obviously its still early so that might change but that's where I'm sitting right now.

Again, I want to say this isn't necessarily bad or a flaw it is just how I happen to see the packet so far.

I find this odd as the 2nd playtest packet so far probably resembles 2E and 3E the most out of all the editions.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Aside from the watch-out-that-housecat-could-kill-you hps, how is any of that like classic D&D?

Classic D&D fighters didn't have style, they had weapons, weapon specialization post-UA.

3 & 4 are points of presentation, and no edition of D&D has ever failed to make clear the difference between class, kits, specialization, etc. Except maybe, when the elf was a class.

Not that I'm disagreeing strongly, I felt the 1st packet had a lot of that paleo-D&D feel, myself...

My list was simply things I liked, as opposed to a definitive list of what made it 'D&D'. My last was that it felt like D&D though - which is true. Note, I have nothing against Fighters having Combat styles and the like, I just find it off putting when they are only explained in terms of their tactical 'role' and such. The 'feel' the game is captured in the reinforcement of class archetypes, alOng with factors like familiar HP levels and the like. Skill Mastery actually makes sense too now.

There are still some issues, and I'm sure people will spend time pointing them out as I will, but the core of the game is taking shape for me at least. I can get behind it.

 

[Tovec]

I find this odd as the 2nd playtest packet so far probably resembles 2E and 3E the most out of all the editions.

Very few of the mechanics resemble 3e. And with the exception of higher AC being good (as opposed to descending AC) and some other cursory similarities it doesn't resemble 3e much at all. I keep hearing how 5e so far provides a good feel of the old school or classic games, which is all well and good, but I basically started playing in 3.5 - around 2005. It needs quite a bit of work in order to replicate 3.5 in many distinct ways.

I mean for one I expect to see BAB, skills and save bonuses per level for every class. Which has kind of been squelched with the flatter math. I am used to seeing different abilities and stat blocks for attacks compared to the ones I see in 5e packets so far - just the ability effects and even the names. I am even used to seeing monsters and NPCs built using PC rules not monster rules.

Again, outside ascending vs descending AC I fail to see what is particularly 3e about 5e so far.

 

[slobo777]

I agree with the OP. The playtest packet smells of "Real D&D" now (not sure what that literally smells like ).

This will be a great product IMO for getting new players in.

I'm less convinced than before that it is the product for me and my RPG sessions. For a while I was excited about themes (now specialities) and backgrounds, as tools for breaking out of the class-focussed system. Amongst other things too. Now I can see more of the design I get the distinct feel that although nothing is wrong with D&D Next, this is not going to be the system for me.

But I have to hand it to the designers, the material is coming together at the core as possibly even "The definitive version of D&D".

If I had to play D&D for some reason (someone else's turn to DM), I think I'd be equally happy with a skirmish-heavy 4E, or D&D Next for more open-ended exploring and RP session.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I really like how they have divided the character creation system into race, subrace, class, speciality and background. It makes for a lot of unique combinations, while at the same time, it's very easy to setup. Much better than 20 similar classes.