D&D 5E Should Next have been something completely new and made from scratch?

[Zardnaar]

The only thing it really has in common with 2nd ed is faster combat.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

If that's really what they're trying to do, they haven't been terribly successful. If you attempt the same things in Next that you attempt in 2e, and have the same die rolls, you get some very different results of those actions. So while it may have some traditional names attached, what happens when you play is some way away from what traditionally would happen.

Yes, because it's not 2E.

You're responding to my post where I called Next something like Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition and I said that in the context of the OP and my assessment that this is not a game built from scratch. It clearly has a Gygaxian heart, for wont of a better term.

But that doesn't mean everything is the same as 2E... just as you could roll a die (or dice) in 2E and get a different effect to 1E.

 

[Paraxis]

I see a few 2e influences.

-Fast combat.
-Easy to play off the grid.
-Theme/Subclass is closer to 2e kits then prestige classes or paragon paths.
-Simple monsters except for the ones that cast spells then they are a mess.
-Stat requirements to multi-class.
-More then 3 saving throws.
-The way spells are written just feel vague and open to interpretation.

I see a little bit of every edition in NEXT and think that is a good thing.

As far as the number of people out there playing the game and enjoying it non of us can know for sure but 1,490 people are in the Google Community for it and unlike the forums nothing negative ever gets put up there, and 8 groups are looking for new members on roll20 and that is just the groups open to join, my 2 games don't come up there so countless other games are being played on just that one site.

I think plenty of people like and enjoy the playtest but just don't care to slug through all the bleeghh that gets thrown around on internet forums, plenty of people just play and never think about coming to the forums.

 

[Paraxis]

Double Post

 

[Bluenose]

Yes, because it's not 2E.

You're responding to my post where I called Next something like Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition and I said that in the context of the OP and my assessment that this is not a game built from scratch. It clearly has a Gygaxian heart, for wont of a better term.

But that doesn't mean everything is the same as 2E... just as you could roll a die (or dice) in 2E and get a different effect to 1E.

To me, a Gygaxian heart would imply a certain range of results, a certain set of probabilities, that would be apparent when the dice hit the table. I do not see those probabilities in Next. This is of course a maths issue, and we're told that the maths is still in flux while the designers concentrated on the feel. All I can say is, if what happens isn't part of the feel then it seems like calling things by the "right" names is more important than making them mean anything.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This entirely. Over and over and over again they said it. Next being compatible with other games was never a goal.

That's not really what I've been talking about. They promised us that a 4th edition style wizard would be sitting at the same table as a 3rd/2nd edition style one. They made it sound like it was a puzzle where you could add or take whatever you wanted in order to play a particular style of edition.

 

[lutecius]

It COULD have been better but more likely it would have been worse. The further you deviate from what the current fanbase plays (any edition), the greater the risk of missing the mark.
As other have said, this is sort of what 4e tried and look what happened. Many hated it because it changed too much and others (like me) hated it because it didn't go the direction they wanted (I was hoping for less gamism, not more).
And Pathfinder didn't end up selling more than 4e because it was a whole new game. It's because it was more similar to previous editions.
I may not entirely like the result either this time but trying to find a common ground and go modular is a much safer bet for WotC.

And frankly I don't like damage on a miss and wouldn't want too many mechanics like this in the game... but it wouldn't be that hard to remove it and come up with another option, even if the designers didn't do it themselves (but I think they'll do now... That's the point of playtesting an voicing your opinion).

We all get that you don't like it; never fear!

I don't see how you not liking DDN translates to "it would have been better for WotC to have designed an entirely different game to D&D" though.

uh... either you quoted the wrong post or my English is even worse than I thought (I'll admit I was a bit tired and not as clear as I hoped, but still...)

I can't say that I'm enthralled by what I've seen of DDN so far (to the point of wanting to switch to yet another system, that is) but I don't dislike it either (except for a couple of elements like damage on a miss, that I said was easy to remove). And I'm definitely not saying it would have been better for WotC to design an entirely different game.

 

[herrozerro]

That's not really what I've been talking about. They promised us that a 4th edition style wizard would be sitting at the same table as a 3rd/2nd edition style one. They made it sound like it was a puzzle where you could add or take whatever you wanted in order to play a particular style of edition.

Which is completely possible, except for the people who seem to not be able to share a table with different styles.

You don't like damage on a miss, so don't play it. But we can play at the same table with different options like this as long as they are balanced against each other. And providing you don't want to tell me that my way is badwrongfun.

 

[Morrus]

uh... either you quoted the wrong post.

I did. I meant to quote ForeverSlayer.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I did. I meant to quote ForeverSlayer.

Well if it was meant for me then I will answer with this.

Because I'm not the only who isn't liking Next at the moment.