D&D 5E What do you think now that we've received the final playtest packet?

[ForeverSlayer]

I think I am beginning to see why Monte Cook left.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think I am beginning to see why Monte Cook left.

We already know why he left. He wanted to work on his own stuff.

 

[Iosue]

I think we'll see what we have in the final playtest in the initial release of the game, but I don't think the initial release is going to look anything like the game as we have it.

I'll definitely buy the Basic game. If any of the groups I currently play in show interest, I'll probably get the Standard game. The big question for me is what kind of delay the Japanese localization of the game will have.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I think I am beginning to see why Monte Cook left.

"Um, Mike, I've finished everything you've wanted me to do. I don't feel like sitting around for two more years just doing it again and again. But, hey, congrats on working out how not to get laid-off at Christmas. I'm going now. I need to do something creatively and financially rewarding...."

Or something like that.

 

[Salamandyr]

I'm loving it. It plays like a dream...by which I mean the rules largely get out of the way and what's important is what's at the table. There are some rough spots here and there, like the ranger's favored enemy mechanic doesn't work with all the weapon focusses (personally, I liked last packets version of the ranger better), and there are some things I would do differently--in most cases, this would make the game less popular, because I'm in the minority about a lot of things.

But if the final game is pretty much what we got in this packet, I'll definitely play it and run it.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I run it and like it. It seems a lot simpler than 3e, and a lot more flexible than 4e, and a lot more intelligible than old-school systems. Right now, the biggest problems with the game are balance and polish problems, so it seems like a perfect time to phase into internal testing.

What I mean by that is, it's not perfect for the style of game I want to run, but that's mostly because the game is too easy (which is a known issue that can only be fixed with math finesse, and maybe a set of optional rules), and partly because a lot of the subsystems have a bunch of weird steps or various annoyances (which is a polishing thing that you fix while testing with focus groups).

 

[Mistwell]

Personally I am still scratching my head on some things and wanting to pull my hair out on others.

Right now, based on a few critical areas of concern for me, it doesn't look good at all.

But I don't feel like even those have been implemented in a way that encourages me to buy the system, let alone be excited about it. ... Not a game I'm interested in.

This is my fear as well...But maybe unrealistic expectations on my part are the problem. I hope somebody likes this edition as much as I liked 3rd and currently like 4th ed.

I also think that it is almost unbelievable that it took the entire WotC design team over two years to produce a game that has little to distinguish it from many other AD&D (the A is deliberate) clones and fantasy heartbreakers. (And now they need another team to nail down the maths.)

I think I am beginning to see why Monte Cook left.

For those of you who had a negative overall impression, all quoted above, I am curious as to two questions:

1) Have you actually played the most recent version of the playtest?
2) How many times have you played any version of 5e, roughly?

From what I am seeing, those who play the game, who talk about their games and actual things that happen in them, seem to really like the game. Then there seems to be a group that are not playing it much, or at all, who seem to dislike the game. But, maybe that's a false impression, so I am asking each of you directly with these two questions.

 

[GX.Sigma]

those who play the game...seem to really like the game...a group that are not playing it much...seem to dislike the game.

Of course. Why would you keep playing it if you don't like it?

 

[Salamandyr]

Of course. Why would you keep playing it if you don't like it?

But have they played it at all? Or have they just read the rules, found some bits they found problematic and decided to skip the whole thing as a bad job?

I've seen people say they're condemning the whole endeavor because humans get +1 to all attributes, and it's obvious they've never even made a character to see what that +1 actually means.

 

[Mistwell]

Of course. Why would you keep playing it if you don't like it?

Because it's a playtest, and you're supposed to play the test rules, of course I assume people commenting extensively on the rules have played them, but maybe I am wrong. I did see one person, who posts almost every day about the rules, mention they have not actually played it since Christmas.

If it turns out there is a pattern that people who play the game like it but those who just read it without playing it do not like it, then it's a good sign WOTC is on the right track with this game. The game should be tailored to best satisfy those who actually play it, and sometimes it's difficult to really get a feel for a rule without actually playing the game and using the rule at the table. I know we're a bunch of guys who all think very highly of our own ability to visualize the rules in play, but that often isn't a good method for genuinely assessing them.