D&D 5E Where does Next fit in terms of RPG ecology?

JRRNeiklot

First Post
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition.

That's essentially what Next is which means, generally speaking, that it's a simpler version of D&D (compared to 3.xE and 4E) that could have been designed in 1999, although there are a few modern (3.xE- and 4E-inspired) touches.


If you want an older school and thus rules-lighter (not necessarily rules light, but YMMV) then Next is for you. If you want a slightly updated version of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons that you can use to run old school AD&D adventures with minimal modification then Next is for you. (Personally speaking, I think this is the only attraction of the game.)

Simpler than 3e/4e, maybe, but I don't get an AD&D vibe at all. I see Next as a lower powered version of 3e. Nothing Old School about it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Simpler than 3e/4e, maybe, but I don't get an AD&D vibe at all. I see Next as a lower powered version of 3e. Nothing Old School about it.

Almost all their paid consultants are well known old-school DMs. It plays without minis or a board. Comparisons of index card character sheets show base classes, like fighter, to read virtually identical with only minor changes. Compatibility with with 1e/2e is sufficient to run 1e modules with very few changes, on the fly. Said compatibility led WOTC to issue 5e conversion notes for their most popular 1e/2e modules, and they were not long as it didn't take much to convert them. L&L articles are frequently citing 1e/2e rules as comparisons. Playtest reports are rife with comments that the game feels much more old school. Critics are sometimes calling it edition 2.75, and when proficiencies were released the comment was often "Welcome to the year 1999".

Nothing old school about it? When you played the playtest, what did it feel like to you?
 
Last edited:

JRRNeiklot

First Post
Critics are sometimes calling it edition 2.75, and when proficiencies were released the comment was often "Welcome to the year 1999".

Nothing old school about it? When you played the playtest, what did it feel like to you?

1999 is not what I'd call Old School.

It felt like 3.75 "lite" to me.
 

I've heard some people praise how easy it is to convert old modules to Next, but I don't see why--you can't use...literally any of the game stats on the page. You would have to substitute Next's version of monsters, treasure, XP, damage. So I don't see how it's any easier to convert them to Next than almost any other RPG with the same fantasy adventure game assumptions. I guess the idea is that the relative balance of monsters/treasure and PCs is more AD&Dish in Next than 3e or 4e? So if the module says that a room has 11 Orcs in it, you can use 11 Next Orcs instead of creating a different encounter?
The encounter design is the big thing. I tried updating a few 1e modules to 3e and it was terrible as the number of monsters just didn't work at higher level play. Lots of low level monsters just don't threaten in 3e as the numbers go up too fast.
And you had to rebuild every encounter for 4e, having different types of monsters even if the module just says "kobolds". I tried updating Keep on the Borderlands for 4e to learn the system and had to continually combine rooms into larger fights to get the right challenge.

I can already think of one case where that's definitely not true: in old AD&D modules Rings of Invisibility are pretty common, but in Next they're a Legendary item.
The treasure and magic items will need the most tweaking. Especially if converting 3e or 4e modules where they shower you with treasure.
 


Scrivener of Doom

Adventurer
Simpler than 3e/4e, maybe, but I don't get an AD&D vibe at all. I see Next as a lower powered version of 3e. Nothing Old School about it.

Interesting.

It definitely plays like AD&D to me, which is why I called (and call) it Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition.

That's not a backhanded attempt to belittle it, either; that just sums up how it feels to me (in a completely subjective, IMO/YMMV sort of way). Also, it reminds me of some ideas I had for my own AD&D-based fantasy heartbreaker around 1998/9 so, to me and maybe nobody else, it does feel like we've gone back in time and a difference choice has been made with respect to Third Edition.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Interesting.

It definitely plays like AD&D to me, which is why I called (and call) it Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition.

That's not a backhanded attempt to belittle it, either; that just sums up how it feels to me (in a completely subjective, IMO/YMMV sort of way). Also, it reminds me of some ideas I had for my own AD&D-based fantasy heartbreaker around 1998/9 so, to me and maybe nobody else, it does feel like we've gone back in time and a difference choice has been made with respect to Third Edition.

Go and play a real game of 2nd ed and get back to me lol. D&DN is not AD&D 3rd ed for various reasons. I'm playing a 2nd ed hybrid game (ascending ACs, basic skill system) and if you take some of the things 3rd ed did do ok with and plug it into AD&D it is kind of hard to see the appeal of D&DN. Saving throws that function, monster math that kind of works things like that. At best the play styles are vaguely similar except the D&DN stuff has an uber amount of healing available and unlimited spells. Not much resoure management and even wands do not run out of spells. Multiclass works different, spells are different etc.
 
Last edited:

Scrivener of Doom

Adventurer
Go and play a real game of 2nd ed and get back to me lol. (snip)

We used to play 2E with minimal resource management and lots of easily-available healing.

Next feels like an updated 2E to me. Next is not 2E. Next is not a clone of 2E. Next feels LIKE 2E. You know, similar to.

To me.

In my best Freddy Mercury voice, "To me."
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Saving throws that function,

I've found saving throws function quite well in D&D Next.

monster math that kind of works

Again, I've found the monster math works well in Next.

things like that. At best the play styles are vaguely similar except the D&DN stuff has an uber amount of healing available

Some people had more healing than others in their 2e games.

and unlimited spells.

ONLY for cantrips. IE just for two minor spells. So what, you're upset because a minor spell does the same damage as a crossbow for a wizard, and fires as often? It's not like they're dishing out infinite sleep spells or fireballs.

Not much resoure management and even wands do not run out of spells.

There is plenty of resource management in Next. I am starting to wonder, have you played it?
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Saving throws that function,

I've found saving throws function quite well in D&D Next.

monster math that kind of works

Again, I've found the monster math works well in Next.

things like that. At best the play styles are vaguely similar except the D&DN stuff has an uber amount of healing available

Some people had more healing than others in their 2e games.

and unlimited spells.

ONLY for cantrips. IE just for two minor spells. So what, you're upset because a minor spell does the same damage as a crossbow for a wizard, and fires as often? It's not like they're dishing out infinite sleep spells or fireballs.

Not much resoure management and even wands do not run out of spells.

Wands generally run out of spells after a couple weeks of use (5% chance per day of regular use, average four charges per day). There is plenty of resource management in Next with spells and hit points and time and light sources and food and encumbrance and some magic items like potions etc.. I am starting to wonder, have you played it?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top