in what way is Next improvment over your current favorite edition of the game ?

125 posts / 0 new
Last post

Hit point inflation and things like evasion nerfed them. Saves also need to be higher than what they were in 3rd ed and D&DN now. DD was not brokem in 3.5 and leave metamagic out of D&DN.



They weren't broken in AD&D either. It was just a different type of game. To get that kind of damage in a game with tactical combat, you would have to imagine some kind of balancing factor. A game where the big spells take 2 rounds to cast could be fun because you would try to disengage to disrupt the spell before it goes off.

D&D wasn't one bit tactical before 4th edition. Maybe the problem is that they won't be able to create a game that is both tactical and has the cool funky toys you had in AD&D.


I don't think it matters anyway as they are repeating everything that drove out the classic players from 4th ed and they are driving off the 4th ed players as well. 



I really love AD&D but there are some things I would change. I liked 3rd edition but it was too much work to DM and I got sick and tired of fixing it. I didn't like 4th edition but I liked a lot of the ideas. I think the only ones that are going to be disappointed with Next are those that only like one edition of D&D.
 I like AD&D and 3rd ed and there is not that much to appeal to me in D&DN. If I want quick and easy I have AD&D, if I wnat complex I have Pathfinder. You can probably please 2/3 of the main D&D groups but if you try to please all 3 you may just lose all 3. 
3.5 is my favorite.

In my experience, the strong point of 5th edition is that it is very easy to run the game. 3rd edition's CR system was not only a nightmare to work with, but didn't work at all. The new encounter difficulty guidelines still need some work on their math, but they're really easy to work with. The DCs are also very easy to work with, whereas in 3rd edition, skill bonuses got to such ridicuous heights that a challenging DC could get into the 40s or 50s in a high level game.

As a DM I would rather run 5th edition than any other system, but as a player I would still rather play 3.5, because that horribly broken skill system was so much fun to define my character with point by point, and I always had at least one interesting thing to do every level up.
So looking at the difrent responses these seem to be the points that many peole seem to name the folowing as the strong points of 5th edition so far.
Independent of edition named as their favorite.

Ability checks / streamlining.
Turn / combat speed at the table.
Exploration rules
Backgrounds.
 
Add me to the list of "absolutely nothing." Right now my D&D-like preferences are pretty much 4E > Mutants & Masterminds > Rifts > anything else d20 > a board game like Dark Tower or Dungeon > any other social activity > Next.
Absolutely nothing.
@ OP

Right now, it's not.

My group and I favor 2e AD&D.  We had hopes for 5th since it was supposed to streamline gameplay so that combat moved much quicker (such as in the pre-WotC versions of D&D).  But the all consuming focus on "combat balance" and MMO / boardgame concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles that WotC have gravitated towards in the recent years doesn't interest me.

I don't care for an edition where the theif or rogue is looked upon as a DPS instead of a theif or rogue.  Or the cleric is more a fighter/mage rather than a traditional cleric.  Or where the wizard has been reduced to a novelty act, capable only of parlor tricks that clear weak fodder in combat or make non-combat tasks more convenient, rather than actually feeling like a wizard from great books and movies as the earlier editions did.

Is 2nd edition perfect?  Not by a long shot.  But if I have to choose an edition of D&D, it's definitely the one for me.

Thankfully, there's Dungeon Crawl Classics, which actually managed to make fighters VERY fun to play while preserving traditional story type roles and feel for all classes.  They tamed magic without nerfing it into oblivion.  Magic comes at a cost.  It's risky, chancing loss, missfire, and/or corruption with every casting of a spell.  And basically requires a player to make a roll to see if you can even cast the spell, in addition to the traditional save required by most spells if you do manage to cast it.  Wizards PC's in my game using the DCC system tend not to even cast a spell unless it's needed, and in that sense, gives them a Gandalf like feel.  Magic keeps it's earlier edition potency and feel but is tamed from a balance perspective by different methods than simply nerfing both the wizard spells and class.  And fighters deal good damage and are capable of so much more thanks to advanced critical tables and dice, and the Mighty Deed of Arms feature.  Is DCC perfect?  No.  The "funnel" is fun from time to time, not for every game.  Personally, I'd like to see more options, sort of like an "Advanced" DCC.  But the system flows.  We've been flying through adventures with it.  It's dangerous and challenging.  And right now, it's what feels best for my groups and I.  Next developers could definitely take some ideas from it and other fluid systems that have a traditional D&D feel but with more modern and balanced mechanics.



So then I take it you've never played or read 4E. You should pick it up and have a good read. I'd suggest starting with the class compendium or rules compendium to start maybe branch out into the original players hand books or the Essentials books. Great read...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

So then I take it you've never played or read 4E. You should pick it up and have a good read. I'd suggest starting with the class compendium or rules compendium to start maybe branch out into the original players hand books or the Essentials books. Great read...



Nah, we've played it.  I started playing D&D in 1986, and between that time and sometime in 2000, I played D&D, AD&D, and 2nd ed AD&D.  In 2000, and up until 2010-2011, I played 3rd, 3.5, and Pathfinder editions.  Then we moved to 4th, which orininally appealed to my players and I for it's streamlined basic core mechanics such as the revised skills, feats, experience table, ease of encounter creation, etc.  But the class structure and "combat balance" or MMO style focus on class roles over the traditional story book character based roles quite frankly made it the most horrible D&D experience we've ever had.  We favor rogues as rogues, not DPS.  Fighters as the main martial combat class, not just defensive tanks.  Clerics as healers and bane of undead, not a single class version of a multi-classed fighter mage.  And Wizards that actually feel and play like wizards of great books and movies, not just CC (crowd control).  Fourth, for us, was the death of all that.  And one of the reasons we left 3rd was due to it's reliance on the battle grid.  And 4th was even more dependent on it.

We went back to Pathfinder for awhile, but the clunky and excessive rules just reminded us why we tried 4th edition out of desparation in the first place.  When we went back to 2e AD&D, it felt like home.  And it actually made us sick to think of how many games we could have played had we never left.  AD&D 2nd edition is far from perfect, but it flowed much better.  We have since moved to Dungeon Crawl Classics, which for us, solved some of 2nd's shortcomings.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg)

I haven't read the whole thread, so I am unsure if anything I am about to say has been said already.

I will also note that I haven't fully perused the newest packet, so I am unsure if the things I like are still "present" or if they have been changed.  Some of the changes and adjustments are coming fast and free (overall a good thing, from a "we're aggressively trying new ideas" perspective...), and the packets have begun to blur together in my mind.  So bear with me.

My favorite edition is 4th.

Things that Next is doing that I like more than 4e:

While I have some concerns over the specific execution, Bounded Accuracy as a "solution" to ever-increasing numbers and "number porn" is very much welcome at my table.

I like generic diety templates that encourage DMs to flesh out their own pantheon (Lifegiver, Lightbringer, etc).

I like that combat goes faster than 4e (though I should note that with practice and mindfulness, my group and I got 4e moving fairly briskly, and D&DN might be a touch too fast).

I like that classes give stat bonuses.

I like skill being connected to background, rather than class.

I like skills being disconnected from specific abilities (and I am well aware that this was changed in the newest packet).

I like Advantage/Disadvantage as both an elegant mechanic in and of itself, as well as an elegant way to deal with condition/bonus stacking, and other fiddly things to track.

I am liking Favored Enemy a la Orzel.


Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.

I am liking Favored Enemy a la Orzel.



I wonder if anyone doesn't like this. This alone makes the ranger the best version of the ranger I've ever played.
I do not think that this any way near an improvement over my favoured edition, which is 4th ed.

However, I do like the way they made the core four classes really broad but still captured the essence of each. I especially like the cleric.

But I still cant work out how they are going to create a system able to capture the interests of all our different edition, styles and preferences.

 
The weapons are pretty forgiving compared to earlier versions.  Theres lots of finesse weapons like spiked chain, katana(?!), scimitar.  No more Exotic weapons eating up feats.  Even the crossbow isn't terrible this time around.
I haven't read the whole thread, so I am unsure if anything I am about to say has been said already.

I will also note that I haven't fully perused the newest packet, so I am unsure if the things I like are still "present" or if they have been changed.  Some of the changes and adjustments are coming fast and free (overall a good thing, from a "we're aggressively trying new ideas" perspective...), and the packets have begun to blur together in my mind.  So bear with me.

My favorite edition is 4th.

Things that Next is doing that I like more than 4e:

While I have some concerns over the specific execution, Bounded Accuracy as a "solution" to ever-increasing numbers and "number porn" is very much welcome at my table.

I like generic diety templates that encourage DMs to flesh out their own pantheon (Lifegiver, Lightbringer, etc).

I like that combat goes faster than 4e (though I should note that with practice and mindfulness, my group and I got 4e moving fairly briskly, and D&DN might be a touch too fast).

I like that classes give stat bonuses.

I like skill being connected to background, rather than class.

I like skills being disconnected from specific abilities (and I am well aware that this was changed in the newest packet).

I like Advantage/Disadvantage as both an elegant mechanic in and of itself, as well as an elegant way to deal with condition/bonus stacking, and other fiddly things to track.

I am liking Favored Enemy a la Orzel.





I think I agree with your list but the things 5e does worse than 4e drown out these.


Each edition has brought something new and exciting for players.
It's not the case of this playtest.

4th edition had a huge quality, it was a risk. The devs and the bankers took the risk of a big revamp, bringing a lot of new concepts to D&D, the logic next step after the 3rd edition (less risky, but courageous) d20 system on the way of a global coherency.
Where is the creative courage in DDN ? Trying to find a way to go back in time when a lot of concepts were clashing with each others, each having its own logic, and still keeping the gained coherency to please everyone ? First, it's impossible, and second, the motivations behind this kind of process offers no interest.
The old editions mess reflects the state of RPGs at these time, their "technology levels", and each of them is perfect from this point of view.

Accentuating the traits of an old version of a class or a race is not something new, it's just playing secure and offering nothing than an update.
Do we need a 2.64th or 3.87th edition ?

Like we are plagued with cover songs, now it seems we are plagued with cover versions of RPGs.
In the two cases, I think the situation sucks…

I don't care about a cover version of D&D, even with the official D&D logo on it.


…The tone of this post may not be so clear. No anger or despair, here, I'm just a little disapointed and maybe also a little ironic.
Well there is one thing nobody mentioned so for, but was pitched as a big positives about DnD next by the devolopers.

This is the speed and ease to create a character, so does anybody care about the speed of character generation ?
Personaly i don't i rahter spend 4 hours to create a character that is very intresting then 5 minutes to create somthing that is bland.  
Well there is one thing nobody mentioned so for, but was pitched as a big positives about DnD next by the devolopers.

This is the speed and ease to create a character, so does anybody care about the speed of character generation ?
Personaly i don't i rahter spend 4 hours to create a character that is very intresting then 5 minutes to create somthing that is bland.  




for every player that wants to pour over 20 books to make a character in 4 hrs, there is a new player that wants to play that says why should i spend 4 hrs making one when i dont even know the system that well. i dont mind an advanced and complicated system i actually perfer them being also a wargamer however it is also the way you destroy the game for most players who want to spend the 4 hrs playing and in 2nd you could spend 15 min with a book or two and make a fun and interesting character.
Well there is one thing nobody mentioned so for, but was pitched as a big positives about DnD next by the devolopers.

This is the speed and ease to create a character, so does anybody care about the speed of character generation ?
Personaly i don't i rahter spend 4 hours to create a character that is very intresting then 5 minutes to create somthing that is bland.  



 Everything that is wrong with D&D now days.
I spend a lot of time in my head playing with character concept before even going to the books. It's the principal reason why I hate rolling stats, as dice generally don't respect my design decisions.

Quickly creating a character is far beyond my abilities. I know people who can do it, I studied them to understand, but they died in the process and I didn't learn anything.
Well there is one thing nobody mentioned so for, but was pitched as a big positives about DnD next by the devolopers.

This is the speed and ease to create a character, so does anybody care about the speed of character generation ?
Personaly i don't i rahter spend 4 hours to create a character that is very intresting then 5 minutes to create somthing that is bland.  




for every player that wants to pour over 20 books to make a character in 4 hrs, there is a new player that wants to play that says why should i spend 4 hrs making one when i dont even know the system that well. i dont mind an advanced and complicated system i actually perfer them being also a wargamer however it is also the way you destroy the game for most players who want to spend the 4 hrs playing and in 2nd you could spend 15 min with a book or two and make a fun and interesting character.



It might also be the way my main group plays, that makes me more intrested in in depth character creation.
We always to play long term campaign so when you make a character  you will be playing each week for the next months in some cases even years.
so spending a few hours on fleshing out your character is a small investment if it makes that long period afterwarnd more intersting.

Also the thing that takes up the most time in character creation in our group is seting up your characters place in the world.
Where did he grow up, does he have famely, did any intresting events happen during the time he grew up, how did events in the world affect your characters outlook on the worls and so on.
A usual character comes with 2 A4 pages just on character background one of my characters even had 16 pages
 
Character creation could only take 5 minutes or more if people kept an open mind.

If a level 1 character represents a guy that barely made out of the fighting academy or an apprentice wizard, it's perfectly acceptable to have only 10 hit points at level 1 and very few options in combat. This shouldn't take more than 5 minutes. This also has a big advantage: you don't have to front load classes and it makes multiclassing a lot easier to implement.

You don't have to start at level 1, you never have and never will. If you start at level 5, you would have far more options to chose, combats would be more interesting and you would have more hit points.

If it's really that big of an issue to not play 20 levels, then just have 25 levels. Oh wait, if you have 25 levels, then some people will say it's not ok to only have 20 levels when they could play 25 levels. Problem can't be solved with these kinds of people living in the world. If only...
3.5 is my favorite.

In my experience, the strong point of 5th edition is that it is very easy to run the game. 3rd edition's CR system was not only a nightmare to work with, but didn't work at all. The new encounter difficulty guidelines still need some work on their math, but they're really easy to work with. The DCs are also very easy to work with, whereas in 3rd edition, skill bonuses got to such ridicuous heights that a challenging DC could get into the 40s or 50s in a high level game.

As a DM I would rather run 5th edition than any other system, but as a player I would still rather play 3.5, because that horribly broken skill system was so much fun to define my character with point by point, and I always had at least one interesting thing to do every level up.



I agree completely with the DMing part.  This playtest is really easy to run.  The funny thing I've experienced is that when 4e came out, I quickly adapted to it because it was so easy to DM.   I said, "I'm never going to DM another 3.0/3.5 game again."   Now, after playtesting the core in D&DNext, I'm kind of thinking the same, "I'm never going to DM another 4e game again." 

As far as playing, I enjoy almost any game I play except for when my PCs get to the higher levels.  As a casual player who plays between 1 and 3 times a month, the options for spellcasters in 3.5 became too much to handle, and powers in 4e seemed to draw more to mechanics than to fluid play.  In these playtests, I've really enjoyed playing a Dwarven Lifebringer Cleric using "Shield Bash" and now "Interposing Shield" as a defensive trick to help out my allies and add off turn decision making to my game.

A Brave Knight of WTF

Character creation could only take 5 minutes or more if people kept an open mind.

If a level 1 character represents a guy that barely made out of the fighting academy or an apprentice wizard, it's perfectly acceptable to have only 10 hit points at level 1 and very few options in combat. This shouldn't take more than 5 minutes. This also has a big advantage: you don't have to front load classes and it makes multiclassing a lot easier to implement.

You don't have to start at level 1, you never have and never will. If you start at level 5, you would have far more options to chose, combats would be more interesting and you would have more hit points.

If it's really that big of an issue to not play 20 levels, then just have 25 levels. Of wait, if you have 25 levels, then some people will say it's not ok to only 20 levels when they could play 25 levels. Problem can't be solved with these kinds of people living in the world. If only...

Where is the open mindedness involved here ?

You just expose how options should be implemented following your opinion. I'm not saying that I disagree with everything you said, but what is sure is that I can't agree with the "if people kept an open mind" part when the post doesn't show the example.

Starting level is not an individual choice for example. If a player wants to start at 5th level, I don't think a DM will agree if all other players are 1st level.

Keeping an open mind is also about considering individualities, and attacking divergent opinions just for being divergent is the exact opposite of open-mindedness.



Edwin, I'm going to go through character creation w/ a group this Friday. Up to 6 people said they'd try to make it. 5 of them have experience w/ D&D, but none of them have have touched the playtest as far as I know. This will be a good chance to test and see.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Where is the open mindedness involved here ?

You just expose how options should be implemented following your opinion. I'm not saying that I disagree with everything you said, but what is sure is that I can't agree with the "if people kept an open mind" part when the post doesn't show the example.



It could also be rules to have a level 0, 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 if it's important to front load classes for multiclass purposes. I don't know what the game designers have in mind for multiclassing.

edwin_su and his friends want character creation to be complex. I wouldn't be surprised if they also wanted more meaningful options at level 1. Depending on the campaign, I want to have the option to start as a rookie with very few options or to start as more experienced adventurer. If you can find another way to make both of these possible, I'm open to it. Whatever form of apprentice levels could be the dumbed down version of character creation and the level 1 (or whatever level is appropriate for multiclassing) could be edwin_su's complex character creation process.


Starting level is not an individual choice for example. If a player wants to start at 5th level, I don't think a DM will agree if all other players are 1st level.



No, this is a gaming group decision. Unless the DM has a very specific campaign in mind that starts as novice adventures, there's really no reason for a DM to not allow a whole gaming group to start at levels above 1st.


Keeping an open mind is also about considering individualities, and attacking divergent opinions just for being divergent is the exact opposite of open-mindedness.



Every time someone has brought up these kind of ideas, the idea has been rejected by "divergent opinions" with a very simple argument: I'm not going to use it so it can't be in the rules.

I don't want healing surges because I'm not going to use them. I don't want warlords because I'm not going to use them. I don't want dragonborns and tieflings because I'm not going to use them. Sounds familiar? .
My favorite is 4E. Though that may be already well known, but hey everyone else is doing it. Tongue Out

I am not going to say nothing.

I will say (as others have) that bounded accuracy is a neat idea.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created devide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitrol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and premptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

Where is the open mindedness involved here ?

You just expose how options should be implemented following your opinion. I'm not saying that I disagree with everything you said, but what is sure is that I can't agree with the "if people kept an open mind" part when the post doesn't show the example.



It could also be rules to have a level 0, 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 if it's important to front load classes for multiclass purposes. I don't know what the game designers have in mind for multiclassing.

edwin_su and his friends want character creation to be complex. I wouldn't be surprised if they also wanted more meaningful options at level 1. Depending on the campaign, I want to have the option to start as a rookie with very few options or to start as more experienced adventurer. If you can find another way to make both of these possible, I'm open to it. Whatever form of apprentice levels could be the dumbed down version of character creation and the level 1 (or whatever level is appropriate for multiclassing) could be edwin_su's complex character creation process.


Starting level is not an individual choice for example. If a player wants to start at 5th level, I don't think a DM will agree if all other players are 1st level.



No, this is a gaming group decision. Unless the DM has a very specific campaign in mind that starts as novice adventures, there's really no reason for a DM to not allow a whole gaming group to start at levels above 1st.


Keeping an open mind is also about considering individualities, and attacking divergent opinions just for being divergent is the exact opposite of open-mindedness.



Every time someone has brought up these kind of ideas, the idea has been rejected by "divergent opinions" with a very simple argument: I'm not going to use it so it can't be in the rules.

I don't want healing surges because I'm not going to use them. I don't want warlords because I'm not going to use them. I don't want dragonborns and tieflings because I'm not going to use them. Sounds familiar? .

Okay, I missed what you were expressing Innocent

Where is the open mindedness involved here ?

You just expose how options should be implemented following your opinion. I'm not saying that I disagree with everything you said, but what is sure is that I can't agree with the "if people kept an open mind" part when the post doesn't show the example.




edwin_su and his friends want character creation to be complex. I wouldn't be surprised if they also wanted more meaningful options at level 1. Depending on the campaign, I want to have the option to start as a rookie with very few options or to start as more experienced adventurer. If you can find another way to make both of these possible, I'm open to it. Whatever form of apprentice levels could be the dumbed down version of character creation and the level 1 (or whatever level is appropriate for multiclassing) could be edwin_su's complex character creation process.




Wel one thing in in our group that is a big thing in character creation is making a character, not a bunch of stats that just poofed into existence in the inn where the first adventure starts.
What i mean by that is that stats and a bilities are only a small part of character creation, but character creation seems totaly focused on the stats part.
The idea of slapping some stats together and then sitting down to play seems realy strange to me are you playing a character or a bunch of stats ?

We always have very long back stories with our characters in what city was he raised how did he get in the wizard academy did he make any friends /allies he can call on if needed does he have a aunt living in the capital where he can stay when visiting there.
does he have siblings if yes what do they do?

As it can be hard to judge how powerfull a pice of back story can be in game we often use a modifed version of the white wolf background system to make sure one player doesen't gain much more power from his characters history then another.

 
I haven't read the whole thread, so I am unsure if anything I am about to say has been said already.

I will also note that I haven't fully perused the newest packet, so I am unsure if the things I like are still "present" or if they have been changed.  Some of the changes and adjustments are coming fast and free (overall a good thing, from a "we're aggressively trying new ideas" perspective...), and the packets have begun to blur together in my mind.  So bear with me.

My favorite edition is 4th.

Things that Next is doing that I like more than 4e:

While I have some concerns over the specific execution, Bounded Accuracy as a "solution" to ever-increasing numbers and "number porn" is very much welcome at my table.


Gonna have to call that one a difference not necessarily an improvement.

I like generic diety templates that encourage DMs to flesh out their own pantheon (Lifegiver, Lightbringer, etc).


Nice flavor reminds me of how 1e encouraged designing your own world or using myth and legend.

I like that combat goes faster than 4e (though I should note that with practice and mindfulness, my group and I got 4e moving fairly briskly, and D&DN might be a touch too fast).


Too fast to allow choices to gell.. not so valuable.It amounts to, in a world full of minions what value is there for high damage. 

I like that classes give stat bonuses.

I like skill being connected to background, rather than class.

I like skills being disconnected from specific abilities (and I am well aware that this was changed in the newest packet).

I like Advantage/Disadvantage as both an elegant mechanic in and of itself, as well as an elegant way to deal with condition/bonus stacking, and other fiddly things to track.

I am liking Favored Enemy a la Orzel.


And the rest are pretty much the tid bits that still have me looking at the game... Oh and you left out - Attunement another nice touch.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

D&D Next provides a fairer playing field than most editions of D&D ever provided -- so I enjoy not having to worry about tempering some player characters.

Additionally, it still uses the concepts of older editions that 4th edition (my favourite edition otherwise) cast aside in favour of combat focus. Something 4th edition lacked were fun out of combat features, and that's something that D&D Next brings to the table (hopefully all characters will get that stuff when they're filling in dead levels).

Plus, like 4e and unlike editions prior, preparing for DMing is made straightforward; as the DM, I appreciate that a lot.

Plus plus, I like what bounded accuracy does to the mentality of players and to my options as a DM. Fighting level 1s and level 10s is quite plausible for my level 5 group, and they know that too. Just because the gnolls are level 1 doesn't mean these guys think they can readily wipe a large pack of them. It makes for an atmosphere of more in-the-moment behaviour, less focused on combat stats that don't relate to the setting and more about what the characters themselves might be thinking in the moment.

It's got a bit of a ways to go -- for instance, right now spell casting is a bit too potent compared to non-casting -- but it's shaping up quite well. My friends enjoy playing it, and I enjoy DMing it.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
When I had to roll my stats, I was looking at a bunch of numbers, asking myself for at least an hour if an interesting character concept could match these dictatorial numbers.

So yes, for a while, I was playing a bunch of stats for the the time it took to adapt to the concept forced by the dice. And even with a full developped backstory, if you weren't ready to play the stats rolled with the dice, it's hard to go beyond the numbers for a few sessions.

For me, the character creation starts before the numbers, for others, the character creation starts with the numbers.
Rolled stats break the fun of character creation, and the game immersion after it.
For some people, character points have a similar effect. 

The stats are not a small part of the character creation. 
Over 2nd edition:

-More sane ability score bonuses (no longer need 15s or 16s to even get a small bonus)
-Rogue is actually playable. (2E thieves were godawful)
-Low level spell choices are slightly better.

(of course when you compare this with all the things D&DN does worse, this really isn't a big deal.)

Well there is one thing nobody mentioned so for, but was pitched as a big positives about DnD next by the devolopers.

This is the speed and ease to create a character, so does anybody care about the speed of character generation ?
Personaly i don't i rahter spend 4 hours to create a character that is very intresting then 5 minutes to create somthing that is bland.  


I have not noticed a increase in character creation. I have been running a few character creation session and it takes about the same amount of time to make a character in 4e as it did in 5e. Both much longer then it took to roll up a character in 2e. To be fair though, we have been using points buy and I think if we had been rolling stats like in 2e that the creation time would dip dramatically.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
Over 2nd edition:

-More sane ability score bonuses (no longer need 15s or 16s to even get a small bonus)
-Rogue is actually playable. (2E thieves were godawful)
-Low level spell choices are slightly better.

(of course when you compare this with all the things D&DN does worse, this really isn't a big deal.)




The ability bonus thing is true, but also a staple of the D20 system (3e, 3.5e, and 4e) so not exactly new.  I would agree that it is an improvement over 2e in this regard though.  I would also suggest that the removal of stat requirements was a big help.  It was really hard to become a paladin in 2e.... requirements were tough.  

As for low level spells... I disagree.  I think that they only look better when you compare them to high level spells.  Fact of the matter is that they do not scale, so by level 10 a cantrip is dealing 3d8 damage where a magic missile is dealing 3d4+6 which makes magic missile pretty underwhelming at that point. Same could be said for a spell like scorching ray (2nd level) once a wizard hits level 15, (6d6 and costs a 2nd level slot versus 4d8 for free)

Sleep still doesn't scale up... okay.  3rd level damage spells don't scale up, so a lightning bolt will be outdone by a 2handed fighter by level 10.  Its not that any of these spells are bad, but it feels exactly like 4e all over again.  Spells are incredibly limited in their scope and do not scale (unless you take the horrific trap option of using a higher level slot).  So much for wielding cosmic power.  Blur, and displacement are gone.... mirror imaage is significantly worse.  Major spells all seem to have hit point limitations.  Illusion spells are pretty much gone.  Teleport is a 7th level spell.

I mean... the damage is less an issue for me (although it continues the tradition of useless low-level combat spells) but the removal of good utility at low level... that's pretty much gone too.  Defensive magic is nearly non-existant. 
There is nothing in D&DN that will make me want to play it over any of my current systems (Which are PF and 4e).  What I want from previous editions is easily sprinkled in to the game of either system.  

My group follows my lead - I honestly am more interested in 13th age right now as a new system to try rather than D&DN.   
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
I play 2nd Edition, most of the time, with a little bit of 4th, and I like it's blended the two, or at least tried to, since combat goes faster and just the entire design has a more classic feel to it.



I just wish they didn't keep getting rid of 4e elements with each new packet...
It's like they are banking on 4e players eventually giving up and buying Next because there's no OGL for someone to create a 4e clone.


Anyway, this packet's favored enemy is better, IMO, than Hunter's Quarry or 3.5 favored enemy, so that's cool. I like that skills are mostly decoupled from class, as are things like what type of weapons you're good with. I'd love to see a little more added to the ranger, either with favored terrain or some sort of build option that's about what sort of ranger you are, rather than what sort of thing you're best at fighting.

Backgrounds are cool. (specialties annoy me, because they could be more like 4e themes, and IMO they'd be of much greater benefit to the game, but backgrounds I like).

I prefer bounded accuracy to the treadmill of 4e accuracy, but I'd like it a lot more if the damage/HP scale was maybe half as steep as it currently is. I'd prefer that the engine by which monsters and PCs are kept alive long enough to make big fights interesting was DR, THP and healing, rather than hit points, so that you could dial up and down the amount of "work" required to kill stuff, and thus dial up and down the length of combat. Still, numbers tweaking aside, the concept is better, IMO, than the treadmill.


Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Dual-wielding can't be done with two non-light weapons.  Finally. Cry
To summarize:

The majority opinion on this thread appears to be a resounding "nothing."  This appears from fans of many editions.
A close runner up is "one or two minor things, most of them badly implemented even if they were good ideas.  Maybe I'll steal those ideas and  plug them into my favorite edition, it's a lot easier to do than fixing all the crap that's wrong with Next."
Far behind them, you'll find such gems as: "I don't understand the difference between what the rules say and what they actually do," "at least they didn't kill my sacred, diseased cow," and "it's free, for now."
Dual-wielding can't be done with two non-light weapons.  Finally. 



Only a good thing if they get the light weapons right. Handaxes, for instance, should be dual wield-able.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Well, it definitely plays faster than 4e. I also love advantage/disadvantage and the way resistances and vulnerabilities work, a neat way to cut down on the abuse inherent in previous editions with bonuses/penalties/resistances/vulnerabilities all stacking to ludicrous extremes.



This ^ plus a more classic, grittier, more story-friendly feel. 

It's more balanced as both game + story than it's been in a long time.
LEONINE ROAR : Amp Up Your D&D Game : Visit my D&D blog :: FASTER COMBAT : Crush Your Combat Grind
 story-friendly feel.

I don't know of an edition that wasn't 'story friendly'. I've had great fun DMing and playing in every one from blackmoor to 5e and none held back story or roleplaying in the least.