-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
So the playtest is out: What do you think? The EN World poll!
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
Meh. Had fun running it, but that was a result of the players not the rules. Not a fan of Advantage/Disadvantage. Don't like flat math. Didn't feel I could run an entire campaign (2-3 years) with this rule set. The combination of different play styles included in the playtest was probably the biggest issue. I can run a campaign in any edition of D&D, but this one felt more annoying than anything and that was, I believe, strongly tied to the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Lose it.
Didn't mind backgrounds and themes, but want feats to return as well.
Magic missile was getting on my nerves as a DM because it was so boring. I'd have rather the wizard have fired a crossbow, at least then it would have been interesting.
Felt I needed to rush through the combats rather than enjoy the nice, natural pace of them. I enjoy 2-3 hour combats as long as they're interesting.
Feeling like I should probably just wait until they come out with the final rules and vote with my wallet. I'd have rather just played BECMI.
Didn't mind backgrounds and themes, but want feats to return as well.
Magic missile was getting on my nerves as a DM because it was so boring. I'd have rather the wizard have fired a crossbow, at least then it would have been interesting.
Felt I needed to rush through the combats rather than enjoy the nice, natural pace of them. I enjoy 2-3 hour combats as long as they're interesting.
Feeling like I should probably just wait until they come out with the final rules and vote with my wallet. I'd have rather just played BECMI.
barefootwanderer
First Post
I like it, I like it a lot
I have played a lot of different RPGs - a lot of different systems, and have done a bit of playtesting too (Playtested WFRP 2e, and Warhammer 40'000 RP: Dark Heresy). I playtested this with one of my long time gaming friends. Someone who like me has been playing RPG's since AD&D 2e.
my initial thoughts:
1. I like HOW WOTC are going about this playtest. Don't overwhelm your playtesters with THE WHOLE DAMNED GAME IN A BADLY FORMATTED WORD DOCUMENT. There's enough to be able to play, it uses premades so you are from the start focussing on playing the game and examining the basic mechanics. So there is just enough stuff to get you thinking.
2. I think the basic mechanics are very elegant and simple. Simple enough to be adapted and improvised with - which is so so important for the success of a good rpg system in my opinion.
3. The combination of a reduced vancian system, and at will cantrips works nicely. Some of the cantrips feel a tad OP at the lower levels, but I don't think that's a huge problem as they won't scale with level - they hit about as hard as a longsword (the combat ones anyway).
4. Finesse weapons using Dex by default without needing a feat - I cannot tell you just how much I love this.
5. Heavy armour needs something more - AC is no enough - I think it needs some Damage reduction or something because otherwise it just doesn't seem to be worth using at all. Maybe some (though not so much) for Medium armour too. Make Light armour all about avoidance, and heavy armour all about soaking it, pitch medium armour somewhere in the middle.
6. the way characters are built in the basic rules here (or at least, how i can guess they are built looking at the character sheets) is great - race + class + background + theme - it works so very well. I have players in my regular group who typically take hours and hours to write characters - using this system even they would be able to make a character in 15-30 minutes.
7. This edition seems to be heading in the direction of treating its audience as though they are actually intelligent, creative people. People who do not need to be spoon-fed 4 pages of rules to explain how to trip someone over. I like that - 3e and 4e were way too defined - too much numeric certainty about what could be done when etc. 5e seems to be crediting us with the ability to play as reasonable players, to be creative and intelligent with the rules, and to cooperate with our gm's and otehr players to get the best out of the system.
We went for a walk after our initial mini session, to talk over our thoughts. As we always used to do our best thinking while walking and talking
. And while doing so came up with some interesting ways to mix & match the backgrounds and themes of the premade characters to make different feeling characters. Using slayer on the wizard for example for a more brutal wizard who overcharges their spells so that even when they fail or miss, the feedback causes some damage. Or the Slayer rogue, for an assassin type.
Also managed to come up with a theme and background to represent something i love - Runners from the video game Mirrors edge. Black market messengers adept at freerunning, and dodging the law to deliver packages and messages.
All that in a 45 minute walk. I have moved from quietly optimistic, to genuinely looking forward to seeing where the game goes and hoping it can keep this free-form cooperative storytelling feel.
WOTC you're doing a good job here, don't mess it up - add in the complexity that the 3e and 4e players want, keep it all optional so we can all play the way we want. Stick to your design goals and you will make the game you aimed at - you are definitely on the right track.
I have played a lot of different RPGs - a lot of different systems, and have done a bit of playtesting too (Playtested WFRP 2e, and Warhammer 40'000 RP: Dark Heresy). I playtested this with one of my long time gaming friends. Someone who like me has been playing RPG's since AD&D 2e.
my initial thoughts:
1. I like HOW WOTC are going about this playtest. Don't overwhelm your playtesters with THE WHOLE DAMNED GAME IN A BADLY FORMATTED WORD DOCUMENT. There's enough to be able to play, it uses premades so you are from the start focussing on playing the game and examining the basic mechanics. So there is just enough stuff to get you thinking.
2. I think the basic mechanics are very elegant and simple. Simple enough to be adapted and improvised with - which is so so important for the success of a good rpg system in my opinion.
3. The combination of a reduced vancian system, and at will cantrips works nicely. Some of the cantrips feel a tad OP at the lower levels, but I don't think that's a huge problem as they won't scale with level - they hit about as hard as a longsword (the combat ones anyway).
4. Finesse weapons using Dex by default without needing a feat - I cannot tell you just how much I love this.
5. Heavy armour needs something more - AC is no enough - I think it needs some Damage reduction or something because otherwise it just doesn't seem to be worth using at all. Maybe some (though not so much) for Medium armour too. Make Light armour all about avoidance, and heavy armour all about soaking it, pitch medium armour somewhere in the middle.
6. the way characters are built in the basic rules here (or at least, how i can guess they are built looking at the character sheets) is great - race + class + background + theme - it works so very well. I have players in my regular group who typically take hours and hours to write characters - using this system even they would be able to make a character in 15-30 minutes.
7. This edition seems to be heading in the direction of treating its audience as though they are actually intelligent, creative people. People who do not need to be spoon-fed 4 pages of rules to explain how to trip someone over. I like that - 3e and 4e were way too defined - too much numeric certainty about what could be done when etc. 5e seems to be crediting us with the ability to play as reasonable players, to be creative and intelligent with the rules, and to cooperate with our gm's and otehr players to get the best out of the system.
We went for a walk after our initial mini session, to talk over our thoughts. As we always used to do our best thinking while walking and talking
. And while doing so came up with some interesting ways to mix & match the backgrounds and themes of the premade characters to make different feeling characters. Using slayer on the wizard for example for a more brutal wizard who overcharges their spells so that even when they fail or miss, the feedback causes some damage. Or the Slayer rogue, for an assassin type.Also managed to come up with a theme and background to represent something i love - Runners from the video game Mirrors edge. Black market messengers adept at freerunning, and dodging the law to deliver packages and messages.
All that in a 45 minute walk. I have moved from quietly optimistic, to genuinely looking forward to seeing where the game goes and hoping it can keep this free-form cooperative storytelling feel.
WOTC you're doing a good job here, don't mess it up - add in the complexity that the 3e and 4e players want, keep it all optional so we can all play the way we want. Stick to your design goals and you will make the game you aimed at - you are definitely on the right track.
quindia
First Post
I like everything so far except...
1. MOVE-ACTION-MOVE is great except there needs to be a mechanic for breaking off from melee. WotC boards have mentioned several times of people using the ridiculous tactic of moving up 20', attacking, and moving back 20'. I'm confidant that will be addressed so I'm not really worried about it.
2. Given the description of hit points, I don't like that you heal to full after an extended rest. I'm fine with the HD/Surge mechanic regen, but magically going from 2hp to 30hp with a long nap seems wrong.
Anyway, so far I'm a fan!
1. MOVE-ACTION-MOVE is great except there needs to be a mechanic for breaking off from melee. WotC boards have mentioned several times of people using the ridiculous tactic of moving up 20', attacking, and moving back 20'. I'm confidant that will be addressed so I'm not really worried about it.
2. Given the description of hit points, I don't like that you heal to full after an extended rest. I'm fine with the HD/Surge mechanic regen, but magically going from 2hp to 30hp with a long nap seems wrong.
Anyway, so far I'm a fan!
Argyle King
Legend
I voted dislike.
If I can offer more granularity to my answer, I'd say I'm somewhere between dislike and meh. It's not a bad game; I just don't currently have motivation to get into it. I like a lot of the design decisions; however, I also feel as though I can see the writing on the wall about where some of the ideas are heading in the long run, and I'm unsure if I like what I'm seeing as the end result right now.
The playtest material turned out better than I thought it would. Though, the fighter (imo) left a lot to be desired.
Right now, most of my problem is that I don't see any motivation for me to buy into the game. That may change as more material becomes available. On the other hand, it has already been stated that some of the options (followers, henchmen, etc) I wanted will be further down the road. I'm feeling as though -in general- options to suit my tastes won't be available until later on in 5E's life cycle. As such; even though there are some things I like about 5E, it's not currently comparing very favorably to the other rpgs I play.
If I can offer more granularity to my answer, I'd say I'm somewhere between dislike and meh. It's not a bad game; I just don't currently have motivation to get into it. I like a lot of the design decisions; however, I also feel as though I can see the writing on the wall about where some of the ideas are heading in the long run, and I'm unsure if I like what I'm seeing as the end result right now.
The playtest material turned out better than I thought it would. Though, the fighter (imo) left a lot to be desired.
Right now, most of my problem is that I don't see any motivation for me to buy into the game. That may change as more material becomes available. On the other hand, it has already been stated that some of the options (followers, henchmen, etc) I wanted will be further down the road. I'm feeling as though -in general- options to suit my tastes won't be available until later on in 5E's life cycle. As such; even though there are some things I like about 5E, it's not currently comparing very favorably to the other rpgs I play.
scruffygrognard
Adventurer
So far I'm neutral... tending towards positive. I'm strongly against the rest/natural healing mechanic but, other than that, think the rules are fairly decent.
barefootwanderer
First Post
deleted - too waffly, too repetitive, and in places too confrontational. not my style.
Last edited:
Theo R Cwithin
I cast "Baconstorm!"
I didn't vote, since I haven't playtested or even fully read the rules. With no gaming group atm, I've had little interest in 5e.
However, on the the basis of others' playtest reports here in the forums, 5e sounds very promising. So much so, in fact, that last night I broke down and signed up to get the playtest docs from WotC.
I guess that puts me in the "going in a good direction" camp?
(For the record, I'm mainly a PF/3.5 E6 gamer, but with a strong hankering for BX/LL. Also recently started learning Savage Worlds.)
However, on the the basis of others' playtest reports here in the forums, 5e sounds very promising. So much so, in fact, that last night I broke down and signed up to get the playtest docs from WotC.
I guess that puts me in the "going in a good direction" camp?
(For the record, I'm mainly a PF/3.5 E6 gamer, but with a strong hankering for BX/LL. Also recently started learning Savage Worlds.)
Estlor
Explorer
I voted "Liked it," but I'd like to qualify.
In terms of favorite editions, I'm a big fan of BECMI and 4e. So at the moment I think I'm positively inclined because I was expecting far more 3.Xe and little to no 4e in the rules and instead we got a healthy combination of BECMI, 2e, and 4e. And what they gave us from 3.X were the good things that 4e kept anyway.
So we'll have to see where it goes as it unfolds, but for the moment I'm a big fan of the Advantage mechanic and reproducing 4e roles and class abilities in the form of themes.
In terms of favorite editions, I'm a big fan of BECMI and 4e. So at the moment I think I'm positively inclined because I was expecting far more 3.Xe and little to no 4e in the rules and instead we got a healthy combination of BECMI, 2e, and 4e. And what they gave us from 3.X were the good things that 4e kept anyway.
So we'll have to see where it goes as it unfolds, but for the moment I'm a big fan of the Advantage mechanic and reproducing 4e roles and class abilities in the form of themes.
Last edited:
Shieldhaven
Explorer
I felt that there was a lot to like in the rules, particularly the balance of player power and setting grittiness expressed by the availability and style of magic. I was DMing, and found it to be pretty speedy to DM, though I frequently forgot about kobold outnumbering mechanics (but it didn't matter because kobolds lost initiative and died quickly). The players had a pretty good time.
What I see here is the core of a system that I will probably use in preference to other games for fantasy adventure - I really just like class/race/background/theme that much as pillars of character creation. The problems that I have are things I am comfortable house-ruling and tinkering with until it's right.
I wrote up my thoughts in more detail in my blog.
What I see here is the core of a system that I will probably use in preference to other games for fantasy adventure - I really just like class/race/background/theme that much as pillars of character creation. The problems that I have are things I am comfortable house-ruling and tinkering with until it's right.
I wrote up my thoughts in more detail in my blog.
Similar Threads
