D&D 5E Will I like D&D Next?

yes, I also liked that version best. But the newest version has regained some of that appeal, as I can see everything getting put on same bases. I do disagree with uniform advancement of attack/proficiency bonuses bonuses (like half caster level prgression we could get half proficiency progression with weapons or skills) and don´t really like the current implementation of saving throw proficiencies (I´d like proficiencies for magic saves), but overall the game plays more smoothly than earlier packets, and I especially like the advancement in the first 4 levels of most classes, where you don´t have to make too many decisons at every level up.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Li Shenron

Legend
  • 1- I liked the tactical options of 4E, but didn't like the overall "simulation over imagination" effect.
  • 2- Options are good as long as they are, well, optional
  • 3- I don't mind a bit of complexity as long as it isn't complicated (e.g. the human body is complex, the mess of wires behind most desks is complicated)
  • 4- I'd like grand finale battles to last a long time (1-2 hours) and be intricate if desired, but minor battles to be quick and deadly and over in 10-20 minutes (and easily accomplished without the use of miniatures)
  • 5- I want magic items to be magical - vorpal swords to be "vorpal," items overall to feel like they are arcane and mysterious rather than enhancement-devices for munchkinizing characters
  • 6- I want to focus on exploration, adventure, magic and mystery, and a game system that facilitates that and doesn't get bogged down in minutia
  • 7- I liked the tone and vibe of AD&D, the aesthetic and diversity of 3E, and the streamlined nature of 4E
  • 8- I like the idea of "classic D&D" as the default, but with options to do just about any fantasy variation (I know, this will be later, but it came to mind)

I think you'll be happy about points 1, 3, 5, 6.

You'll be also overall ok with 2 and 8 but with some exceptions. Most things are optional but there are still some glaring misses, such as the Human racial benefits: there is no alternative yet to getting that bland but genetically superior array.

Also 5e is largely classical D&D with one main exception: there is no real vancian spellcaster, the "new vancian" is very different (essentially, an intermediate between 3e Wizard and 3e Sorcerer). Also, spellcasting in the game happens 9 times out of 10 through Cantrips and Rituals, and only occasionally through regular spells. This is not bad at all, but certainly is not "classical".

About point 7, I'd say the first 2 features are there, but I cannot comment on the streamlining since I don't play 4e. I have the feeling tho that 5e is not nearly as streamlined as 4e.

Point 4 is the trickiest... I only playtested a bunch of evenings with last XMas packet, and all battles were very short and very easy. Surely it's a matter of picking monsters, but right now I can't say you'll easily get the battles like you want.
 
Last edited:

Herschel

Adventurer
Thanks for the feedback. So far, so good. I'm definitely interested in giving it a try. For some reason I'm getting the sense that it has a quality that was lost in recent editions.

You mean because the last couple of editions were actually cohesive? D&D Next is a mess right now. Obviously there's a long way to go until the finished product because the game just doesn't work very well yet. They're supposedly just going in to Alpha testing now.

13th Age would be a good choice, or run a 1E, 2E or retroclone game.
 


Salamandyr

Adventurer
  • I liked the tactical options of 4E, but didn't like the overall "simulation over imagination" effect.
Currently the tactical "depth" of 4e isn't there yet; by which I mean the array of game options a player has to choose from in a given round. There are decision points-but they are generally on the level of 1 or 2 an encounter, rather than one each round. Of course, there are still the meta-fictional decision points, like whether to engage, what weapons to use, etc. which are actually more important in 5e because characters aren't built to only do one thing well (as in, fighters can actually excel at an array of different combat styles, etc).

As to your contention "simulation over imagination", 5e has gone the exact opposite direction, and has adopted a "fiction first" emphasis, where the story is the important thing and the rules try to support that. There should be less work for the DM or player in explaining how the gelatinous cube could be "prone", for instance.


  • Options are good as long as they are, well, optional
Currently we haven't seen too many of the optional rules, but the idea is that aside from a core element, the whole game will be optional rules modules. So here's hoping.


  • I don't mind a bit of complexity as long as it isn't complicated (e.g. the human body is complex, the mess of wires behind most desks is complicated)
Great analogy! Personally, I think 5e has that. Simple, flexible core, allowing wide array of options. For instance, with the background system, I've been able to make exactly the kind of characters I want to play, even before the multiclassing rules were released.

  • I'd like grand finale battles to last a long time (1-2 hours) and be intricate if desired, but minor battles to be quick and deadly and over in 10-20 minutes (and easily accomplished without the use of miniatures)
Currently there's not a huge amount of support for miniatures play, but I did watch the 5e teams Slave Lords play through and the climax fight was done with mini's and included some interesting set pieces. We haven't seen what it looks like in the playtest document though.

  • I want magic items to be magical - vorpal swords to be "vorpal," items overall to feel like they are arcane and mysterious rather than enhancement-devices for munchkinizing characters
5e does this better than any edition of D&D prior to this, except for that version you played at 12 years old when you didn't know the rules and thus everything was "magical".

  • I want to focus on exploration, adventure, magic and mystery, and a game system that facilitates that and doesn't get bogged down in minutia
I'm really loving the exploration rules module, and the interaction rules look really solid too. They're simple enough to handle things at a really high level, but you can also get into the nitty gritty if you want. Good stuff; probably the best development of 5e.

  • I liked the tone and vibe of AD&D, the aesthetic and diversity of 3E, and the streamlined nature of 4E
OK, it's hard to determine "tone" from a playtest document, but I think 5e hits this myself. I've run a lot of old school modules with it and it does that great, possibly better than old school (thanks to the streamlined exploration mechanics). Of course, it's missing the weird art, and abstruse sentence structure of AD&D; again, it's a playtest document.

  • I like the idea of "classic D&D" as the default, but with options to do just about any fantasy variation (I know, this will be later, but it came to mind)
Pretty much with the rules as written, I feel like I can do a variety of styles, but the rules definitely lend themselves best to 1/2e style "classic" D&D to me. I can see the potential for rules modules that lend themselves to other styles of play, but of course, we haven't seen those yet.


Anyways, there's my responses. I think, on balance, with the understanding that it is an incomplete ruleset, you'll think it's fun. Hope this response helps!
 

MJS

First Post
If you want to focus on exploration and adventure, an important element is the need for a PC mapper in dungeons. Let the maps be complex, and getting lost should be a real peril.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Also, spellcasting in the game happens 9 times out of 10 through Cantrips and Rituals, and only occasionally through regular spells. This is not bad at all, but certainly is not "classical".

Wow, that is not even vaguely close to my experience. And given you said you have not played since Christmas...where on earth are you getting that sort of estimate from?

In our games, which we've played through most of the playtest packets of 5e up through the current one, we've found the overwhelming majority of spells cast were "regular" spells. Cantrips were used about as often as a 1e Wizard would use their crossbow - which is to say, only if they had no regular spell or thought they really needed to save the remaining regular spells for later. Rituals were used for identifying magic items and detecting magic (neither of which is a particularly common thing), and that's about it.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
You mean because the last couple of editions were actually cohesive? D&D Next is a mess right now. Obviously there's a long way to go until the finished product because the game just doesn't work very well yet. They're supposedly just going in to Alpha testing now.

13th Age would be a good choice, or run a 1E, 2E or retroclone game.

Herschel, the game is not a mess right now IMO, it works quite well, overwhelmingly they're getting feedback that it's working quite well right now, you can see on this board tons of people who like it a lot, you can see the same on other gaming boards. So, while of course you're just stating your own opinion...it sure sounded like a very declaratory sort of statement. Why do you think it's a mess...or more importantly, why did you feel discouraging someone from trying 5e was a wise idea?
 

Herschel

Adventurer
Maybe it's subjective, but I've heard this said a few times and I don't understand what you mean by it. In what way is D&D Next not cohesive?

Seriously? It's a hodge-podge with bad math leading to an internal Alpha test. I like some of the ideas we've seen, disliked others and have precious little idea what the final product will look like outside of maybe a few basics. It has the potential to be a good, throwback-style stystem with some modern elements but it's in no way close yet.
 

Herschel

Adventurer
Herschel, the game is not a mess right now IMO, it works quite well, overwhelmingly they're getting feedback that it's working quite well right now, you can see on this board tons of people who like it a lot, you can see the same on other gaming boards. So, while of course you're just stating your own opinion...it sure sounded like a very declaratory sort of statement. Why do you think it's a mess...or more importantly, why did you feel discouraging someone from trying 5e was a wise idea?

Because it's not a "real" (re: complete) system yet. Which playtest packet rules do you use? Which version(s) of the Fighter? How about skills?


Nobody knows what the final system is going to look like yet. Playing with the packets is all fine & dandy, it's what they're there for, but if you truly want to run a campaign using actual D&D Next then the system is going to have major changes by the time it's released.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top