D&D 5E Rate Playtest 1 vs. Playtest 2

[Stormonu]

So, on a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate each of the playtests so far? Is there anything that you preferred over one playtest or the other so far?

 

[Obryn]

I am so underwhelmed with Next at this point that the time I was going to spend in playtesting may instead go to either Realms of Cthulhu or (of all things) Powers & Perils.

-O

 

[Magil]

I put the first playtest at a firm 2 stars for introducing a few interesting mechanics while managing to take almost everything a step in the wrong direction.

The second playtest gets 3 stars for improving a lot of things (the first playtest fighter almost made me give up hope altogether, expertise dice helped a lot), and it looks like they're trying to make it better, but I still think it's holding onto some (imo) flawed concepts for the wrong reasons.

 

[The Shadow]

I think a more interesting metric would be how much higher or lower people rate playtest 2 than playtest 1 - ie, answers ranging from +4 to -4.

Seeing the differences between the averages does not capture the same thing. (Though I'm quite surprised to see 1 having a higher average than 2 thus far.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm underwhelmed. On a very basic level, the approach to skills, class design, and other basics seems okay at least. Not perfect, but also not 4e. But the more specific content I see, the worse things look. The basic CS mechanic, for example, is a positive step, but nearly every maneuver associated with it is at least a little bit sketchy, and at the moment it's a fighter-exclusive class feature, not a system rule that fighters are good at.

The new casters were huge disappointments. The bestiary is very readable, but that's about the best I can say for it. The themes and backgrounds are not good.

I retained some optimism after the first release, but the second release dampened it significantly.

 

[MortalPlague]

I was very pleased with Playtest 1; the ease of use, the speed of play, the flavor of race / class / background / theme, it all resulted in a very fun couple of gaming sessions.

I'm more pleased with Playtest 2; the fighter expertise dice lead the way, while all the options and the ability to make characters that transcend traditional class roles while remaining entirely within their own class makes me very happy. Also, the Blingdenstone adventure was superb. The monsters don't have any teeth, though, which is a big negative on the second playtest.

I went with a '4' on each.

 

[slobster]

I like the overall direction. Classes feel distinct and interesting. Fights are fast and furious, with some good tension. Monsters need work but that's no surprise, it's a very early playtest.

Lower hp in the second playtest was mostly a good idea. I'd like to see a bit more in certain elite style monsters, like some of the monsters in the first.

I liked the first fighter's reaper much better than the second's glancing blow, which is just awful. Combat Superiority in general still makes me giddily happy.

It was fun seeing the two new casters in the second playtest, and very refreshing to see them really trying to set them apart from the normal "wizard but with a different pair of pants".

I gave 4 to each as well.

All in all, I'm looking forward to playtest 3 and optimistic that it will be even better than its predecessors.

 

[The Shadow]

Good grief, you both are reading my mind. I gave them both 4's also.

I was disappointed they moved away from the ... less explicit ... skill system of the first packet, but very pleased by other developments, CS not least.

 

[slobster]

Good grief, you both are reading my mind. I gave them both 4's also.

I was disappointed they moved away from the ... less explicit ... skill system of the first packet, but very pleased by other developments, CS not least.

Oh yeah, that is the thing I loved the most about the first playtest and grieved the most to see it absent in the second. I hold out hope that they will bring it back for round 3.

Would xp you, yadda yadda.

 

[Greg K]

I gave a 1 to Playtest 1 and a 2 to Playtest 2.

 

[Gundark]

Playtest 2 > Playtest 1. I am expecting the playtests to get better as we go .

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

There are enough issues with 2 that I can't give it 5 stars, but it's probably my favorite edition of the D&D classes it presents (except maybe rogue) and has the best core mechanics overall - and that's compared to the final versions of 3e and 4e.

The first playtest was a good start but clearly not up to par with the second, so I gave it a 3.

 

[Li Shenron]

I gave playtest #1 +1 point over playtest #2 . Obviously this in perspective, because in absolute terms the second package clearly has more stuff.

But there were a few things I preferred in playtest #1 : surprise, channel divinity/turn undead, starting hit points and a few more...

 

[MortalPlague]

...but it's probably my favorite edition of the D&D classes it presents (except maybe rogue) and has the best core mechanics overall - and that's compared to the final versions of 3e and 4e..

I'm on the same page here. I'd xp you if I could.

I find more and more I wish I were playing 5th Edition when I'm playing other versions. And the thought that there's more to come makes me very happy.

 

[Goonalan]

I gave it a '1' and a '1'- for playtest 1 it was like its 1978 again and me and four other 11 year olds were taking it in turns to run in to a cave and take swipes at a flavourless monster-shaped lump, kill it, get its gold and then run back to town to chat up the pretty barmaids. Maybe x3 or x4 and the day's done.

Playtest 2 didn't do it either.

My players (ten of them) are 50% 4e and 50% 3e- of the ten then maybe one sorta gets it and is mildly excited, the others want no more to do with the playtests, or rather they don't want to give up their regular session for the playtest any more.

Sorry, not flame, just fact for us- I'll try to get them to play the next variation, we'll see.

Cheers PDR

 

[UngeheuerLich]

4 on both. the first playtest and the second clearly ha different focusses and are not really comparable as a whole.

First I was not so please with combat superiority, but seeing it in play, I must say, I am very pleased.

All in all, it is a game I would play in an instant over 4e and 3e. But it is still clearly in an alpha stage. Some things need to be done. Some things are intentionally left out or different because it is a test run (xp tables e.g.).

I am very pleased with the warlock and the sorcerer as concepts. They may need some fine tuning, but all in all. Great ideas.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Playtest 1 was a joke. The maths was just plain daft in places. The fighter was pathetic. The hit points were ... wrong. The classes ... no. Most of what was there simply wasn't good.

Playtest 2 was better. Not as obviously wrong (other than the Warlock's power to run through walls and create ten pints of flaming oil). That's not just fine tuning. That's sitting down the designers with a rolled up newspaper and saying "No!" Still left a lot to be desired.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Playtest 1 was a joke. The maths was just plain daft in places. The fighter was pathetic. The hit points were ... wrong. The classes ... no. Most of what was there simply wasn't good.

Playtest 2 was better. Not as obviously wrong (other than the Warlock's power to run through walls and create ten pints of flaming oil). That's not just fine tuning. That's sitting down the designers with a rolled up newspaper and saying "No!" Still left a lot to be desired.

I am of a totally different opinion. Playtest 1 was a great way to say: Hello, we are here, we use old ideas and have new ones. And our main fokus is creating a game, that runs fast and feels like D&D with modern mechanics. And we start so early, that we are able to incorporate changes that fix issues which show in playtests...

And yes, the warlock issues are just fine tuning. The concept is pretty much spot on. Removing a single power is nothing. It is not as if you took twin strike from the 4e ranger.

 

[The Shadow]

There are enough issues with 2 that I can't give it 5 stars, but it's probably my favorite edition of the D&D classes it presents (except maybe rogue) and has the best core mechanics overall - and that's compared to the final versions of 3e and 4e.

I also would xp you for this if I could. I agree, very much. Next shows a great deal of promise, though it does need work.

In other news, I'm finding the results of the poll fascinating, even if it is a self-selected biased sample. Playtest 2 is a beautiful symmetrical unimodal distribution centered a bit north of 3, but playtest 1 seems bimodal. It would seem that there are two populations, one that likes it a fair bit (average 3.5 or so) and one that hates it (average 1.5 at best).

At a guess, playtest 2 won over the population that hated playtest 1? So now we're all one big Gaussian family?

 

[Magil]

I am of a totally different opinion. Playtest 1 was a great way to say: Hello, we are here, we use old ideas and have new ones. And our main fokus is creating a game, that runs fast and feels like D&D with modern mechanics. And we start so early, that we are able to incorporate changes that fix issues which show in playtests...

Well, I'd argue that there weren't a whole lot of "new ideas" in the first playtest... but there were a lot of old ones. At least, that's what I managed to decipher from the pregens.