D&D 5E To all the Play-testers: Is it worth it?

fba827

Adventurer
Is playtesting worth it? that depends on your value and enjoyment from fiddling with a new unfinished system. I personally enjoyed a session or two of playtesting BUT i don't want to devote my entire game sessions to playtesting as I prefer something I can play with consistency in my campaign (which you can't do with playtest material that is going to change with each iteration). But, it was worth the time and effort for a couple sessions to me personally.

Is it worth the money? Playtesting doesn't cost money.
If you're referring to 5e, it's still way too early to know what the final product will be like to say if it's worth the money to me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

AstroCat

Adventurer
Our group is finding the latest playtest rules to be a really good time. We are actually running a loose campaign alternating GM's, running the system through it's paces. We are very much liking it. Personally I like it the best of any D&D system yet, I come from way back 70s original 1e, but as always I can only speak for myself.
 
Last edited:

fjw70

Adventurer
Is play testing worth it? I think so. I haven’t actually done a lot of it since my play time is limited, but the it is interesting to see the evolution of the rules and even if WotC decided to drop 5e and stopped all play testing there is a lot of ideas from the material released so far to improve other editions of the game.
 

MortalPlague

Adventurer
...personally I like the best of any D&D system yet, but as always I can only speak for myself.
I'm right there with you. The campaign I've been running has won over most of my players. I've had a lot of people comment on how much they're liking the system, let alone the game.
 

Meh, my answer is I have fun RPing with people that are fun to play with. Is DDN specifically as a game adding anything to that? No, frankly. There is nothing particularly bad about it, but DDN is not a lot like older editions, mechanically and playstyle-wise it isn't all that close to AD&D, and it has none of the "lets go back and write coherent rules" aspect of 4e. Honestly it feels like a hodge-podge, sort of a revamping of 2e with about 100 writers that each got to add one feature until it became a teetering heap of near-incoherence.

The magic system is obtuse by comparison to any other edition. There are sort of random subsystems tacked on. For instance my 2nd level cleric had 3 spell slots and could prepare 3 spells. So he could cast any set of those 3 spells (IE he could cast CLW 3 times, or CLW 2x and Bless once, etc in any combination that he felt like as the day went on). Beyond that he had several cantrips (due IIRC to his choice of deity) and another 'permanent' spell (Command) which he could always cast once a day. On top of this he had Channel Divinity, which is basically ANOTHER 'spell' system where you get 2 effects that you can use once per day each, the exact effects varying depending on your god.

The actual spells could be of various types. Sometimes they were 'power words', which apparently meant they could be cast along with another action. Heals could also be cast along with an attack. There was also a 'maintain concentration' thing, which meant certain situations could disrupt durable spells like Bless. My character also had a "use Lance of Faith as a reaction" so he could blast things whenever someone attacked him.

The result of all this was that the action system in combat was both at least as complex as 4e, but also a LOT harder to understand. Other characters were equally festooned with options which worked in a number of different ways (and at level 6 my character would have added martial dice too). While it would be overstating the case to say someone like me that has played for 35+ years in RPGs would have a LOT of trouble figuring out these rules they were to put it bluntly far inferior to the action system used in 3e and 4e. I found the AOE system used in DDN to also be inferior to 4e's system, as it was considerably harder to figure out but had almost indistinguishable results. In a case where you would not use minis it would hardly matter anyway, as who was hit would be strictly up to the DM anyway.

I also found the whole skill/check system to be fairly cumbersome in practice. Where 4e's short list fixed system was quick and effortless the DDN system required more decisions and always provoked questions at every turn about what might be checked for. The constant questions about advantage and focus distracted from play as well.

While I think the advantage/disadvantage system by itself might be a good idea I think its combination with open-ended skill lists and the "use any ability score with any skill" impeded fast play to little overall benefit. I found myself wishing for the 4e skill system pretty quickly.

I find it 'worth playing' in the sense that I like to play games. Would I PAY for DDN in its current state? NO. 2e would work as well, I already own it, and it is a simpler game, though DDN's rules are slightly more coherent in some ways. Overall the game doesn't feel like a cohesive design, is DEFINITELY slower and clunkier in play than 2e, and yet lacks the clean design of 4e and ease of explaining it to new players. The attempt at making a simpler action system was an especially glaring failure as I couldn't help noting that the various types of spells and 'powers' interactions would have been instantly simple to sort out with a standard/move/minor/free action setup.

Honestly, my recommendations to the designers would be:

1) just go back to the pure Vancian magic system, you know you want to and the thing you have now is a hot mess.

2) put actions back in the game, they are simpler.

3) Cut it out with all the different forms of 'spells' or 'powers'. Just make one type and stick to it. I have no desire to learn the rules for cantrips, spells, expertise, and channel divinity, that's ridiculous.
 

Not to make people be repetitive, but how has combat sped up?

I think it depends on how you play and what you compare it to. Is it any faster?

The other night we were 2nd level adventuring in the gnome caves and all of a sudden we run into some apparently provided wandering monsters, 14 orcs and an Orog. The fight took a GOOD LONG while until we were finally beaten down to defeat. Now, obviously 14 orcs is a lot for the DM to handle, but it wouldn't have been TOO much in say 1e. In DDN though there was just enough added complexity that it turned into a slog. The PCs also had a number of tricks, I kept bouncing other characters back up from being down for instance.

Now, lets imagine this fight in 4e. It would have been an orog and a bunch of minions. A dangerous fight for level 2 PCs, but potentially interesting and at least we could have backed out after skirmishing for a couple rounds. The minions would have played quick and I think the fight would have been more interesting and probably about as quick, maybe quicker.

In 1e or 2e it would have been even faster. The casters would clearly have unleashed in that sort of "oh crap" scenario (as we did anyway) and that would have cut the size of things down right off. The threat level would have probably been about the same (IE we'd have had a hard time winning). I think it would have been equally interesting.

So, compared to 4e? Clearly at least SOME combat can be faster. It may not always be so in practice. I suspect with players that are really familiar with the awkward 'action' rules of DDN it would go reasonably fast and faster than 4e (though experienced 4e players can do pretty well). 1e will probably remain eternally the fastest edition ever.
 

Remove ads

Top