Is it just me, or am I reading 3.0 with some variant rules?

Reading through these rules is making think I'm reading v3.0 with some interesting differences. This is what 3.5 should have been, and IMHO is not different enough to warrant a whole new system.

Am I alone in thinking this?
Yes, they made the Fighter even MORE boring than the 3E version.
Yes, they made the Fighter even MORE boring than the 3E version.



Well, idk about that. Fighters Surge sounds pretty cool. Although, it could totally be a feat. It is still a little boring, but not as boring I think.
I've personally been seeing more AD&D 2e than any 3.x in this.  But with traits beyond "a good to-hit".
I've personally been seeing more AD&D 2e than any 3.x in this.



Yeah, I see they took the Saving throws from 2e, but the classes feel very much like 3e to me.
Yes, they made the Fighter even MORE boring than the 3E version.



More boring that 3E?

This fighter gets +3 to 3 skills, one of which is PERCEPTION.  A Fighter, at Level 1, with a bonus to perception!  And it's not an Elf!

This fighter gets to deal damage to whatever it swings at, WHETHER IT HITS OR NOT.  If it's using a strength attack, it deals 3 damage to EVERYTHING it swings at, minimum.

At level 2, this Fighter, this LEVEL 2 FIGHTER, gets to take 2 actions twice per day.

I'm trying really hard to figure out how this array of abilities makes this fighter boring at all. 
Yes, they made the Fighter even MORE boring than the 3E version.



More boring that 3E?

This fighter gets +3 to 3 skills, one of which is PERCEPTION.  A Fighter, at Level 1, with a bonus to perception!  And it's not an Elf!

This fighter gets to deal damage to whatever it swings at, WHETHER IT HITS OR NOT.  If it's using a strength attack, it deals 3 damage to EVERYTHING it swings at, minimum.

At level 2, this Fighter, this LEVEL 2 FIGHTER, gets to take 2 actions twice per day.

I'm trying really hard to figure out how this array of abilities makes this fighter boring at all. 

Cause all he can really do is spam his basic attack.  4th ed got martial classes right.  I know everyone hates 4th ed but I'm sorry they made fighters and pallies fun and intresting.
It plays a lot like a balanced 3E with some 4E slapped on it.
I'm seeing 2.0 in the playtest for everything that matters. At this point D&D Next should just be AD&D 2.0 2.0. (And no, the two 2.0's are not a typo).
Wizard's first rule: People are stupid.
It feels very 3E-esque to me as well. Hopefully there will be more variance at higher levels or in alternative character options, but I liked how 4E felt like a cool new thing from level one.

This game seems very true to D&D's roots, and like something that would be fun for a new player to start out on, but as somebody who played enough 3E to "burn out" on it, Next doesn't seem worth buying new books to me so far.

This fighter gets +3 to 3 skills, one of which is PERCEPTION.  A Fighter, at Level 1, with a bonus to perception!  And it's not an Elf!

That +3 to skills is actually because of his background. Everyone gets one of those, regardless of race or class.

This fighter gets to deal damage to whatever it swings at, WHETHER IT HITS OR NOT.  If it's using a strength attack, it deals 3 damage to EVERYTHING it swings at, minimum.

That extra damage is actually because of his theme. Everyone gets one of those, regardless of race or class.

At level 2, this Fighter, this LEVEL 2 FIGHTER, gets to take 2 actions twice per day.

This is indeed a pretty nifty feat. But that's all it is. Give it the prereque's of dodge & mobility, and BAM! it fits right into 3.5. Also, with those 2 prerequisites, you could actually take this feat at lvl2 with your fighter bonus feat.

I'm trying really hard to figure out how this array of abilities makes this fighter boring at all. 

Not more boring, just less decisions to make on your own. At least the fighter in 3.x got to choose his feats.

I'm seeing 2.0 in the playtest for everything that matters. At this point D&D Next should just be AD&D 2.0 2.0. (And no, the two 2.0's are not a typo).




I think it does resemble 2e a good bit, and I find that a feature not a bug.  I do believe there will be enough added to the martial classes to have more options than 2e however.
...but as somebody who played enough 3E to "burn out" on it, Next doesn't seem worth buying new books to me so far.



THAT is exactly what I was thinking. I was already a bit burnt out of 3.5 by the time 4 came out, but I still bought the books. (I sold them back 2 weeks later, but still...)
To me there is too much 4E in it, so how people respond probably very much dependant on where you are coming from.
I immediately thought that this looks very much like OD&D with a 3e style system for AC and attack roll resolutions (which is good) and 3e's simplified ability bonus chart.
I'm intrigued by the wide variety of "This looks just like (insert edition here)!" responses.  Seems like WotC hit their goal.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
ok, so, in this thread, we've had people say that it felt like:  1st edition, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, and 4th Edition.

Hrm.... 
I'm intrigued by the wide variety of "This looks just like (insert edition here)!" responses.  Seems like WotC hit their goal.


I was just thinking this.  To me it looks a lot like AD&D 2e, with 3e style ability modifiers and 4e style actual abilities for non-casters (they turned reaping strike and cleave into passive traits, not specific powers).  But I started with AD&D, so maybe it's just my perspective.
Yes, they made the Fighter even MORE boring than the 3E version.


Not to mention obsolete on the gaming table even sooner!
If we go back to the actual design goals of D&D Next about this being the definitive version of D&D and being accessible to all players and all that jazz, I would think that all of this discussion we're having about it right now means that it didn't meet those goals at all...
Wizard's first rule: People are stupid.
The characters feel 3.0ish. The core rules, however, are their own monster. Both like and set apart from the other editions. A little from this, a little from that, and really that's what the playtest is about. The core rules. The characters will change; there will be balances and if Mike didn't lie about more complexities for the martial classes we'll be seeing those too. I am very afraid that people are paying more attention to the characters than the rules in this packet. The characters and monsters are not balanced or finished, that's for later tests. We're supposed to be focusing on the foundation right now.

It bothers me when someone looks at the fighter and automatically says, "DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS IS RUINED. WOTC HAS FAILED." It's like, dude, come on. That's not even the point. This ain't no preview, brotha. This is cloud sourced game development. Grassroot alpha testing. Test it, and let them know you want more options for the fighter. They're listening. But don't start decrying the entire edition based on the first mofo'ing test packet.
If we go back to the actual design goals of D&D Next about this being the definitive version of D&D and being accessible to all players and all that jazz, I would think that all of this discussion we're having about it right now means that it didn't meet those goals at all...





In an od way it could mean they met them. If the most vocal people on either end of the spectrum are upset, they may have struck genuine middle ground.
 I suposse we will see a module about "tricks" or like at-will martial powers and weapons mastery (feats, builds..). Some tricks could be once-per-encounter because they would be about surprise factor (like throwing sand to enemies´ eyes or a feint).

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

If we go back to the actual design goals of D&D Next about this being the definitive version of D&D and being accessible to all players and all that jazz, I would think that all of this discussion we're having about it right now means that it didn't meet those goals at all...



In an od way it could mean they met them. If the most vocal people on either end of the spectrum are upset, they may have struck genuine middle ground.



They're not looking for the middle ground though. They're looking for a D&D that "feels right and plays right-er".

I'm not seeing a lot of that...but what I am seeing a lot of is grognardism. I guess though, that I am guilty of exactly the opposite - championing the new instead of the old.
Wizard's first rule: People are stupid.
If we go back to the actual design goals of D&D Next about this being the definitive version of D&D and being accessible to all players and all that jazz, I would think that all of this discussion we're having about it right now means that it didn't meet those goals at all...



In an od way it could mean they met them. If the most vocal people on either end of the spectrum are upset, they may have struck genuine middle ground.



They're not looking for the middle ground though. They're looking for a D&D that "feels right and plays right-er".

I'm not seeing a lot of that...but what I am seeing a lot of is grognardism. I guess though, that I am guilty of exactly the opposite - championing the new instead of the old.





Yes, but to get a system that feels right and plays right to a large cross section of gamers, they will need to strike middle ground. Go too far in the direction of 4e, you lose people...go too far in the direction of 1e or 2z3 you lose people....go too far in the direction of 3e you lose people. Go too far in the direction of making a "new game" you lose people. Go too far in the direction of making an "old" game you lose people. Etc
Glad I'm not alone in thinking this looks terrible.  No tactical options beyond trying to get advantage.  I don't know if this has come up anywhere else, but advantage and disadvantage equate to a bonus or penalty or about +/- 4, making it significantly more important than combat advantage/flanking was.  
Glad I'm not alone in thinking this looks terrible.  No tactical options beyond trying to get advantage.  I don't know if this has come up anywhere else, but advantage and disadvantage equate to a bonus or penalty or about +/- 4, making it significantly more important than combat advantage/flanking was.  


Patience.  Tactical combat is coming later down the line.  This is very early.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I think what everyone is missing in all this is that this is the next "Edition" of D&D, not a whole new game. It is built on the 4 previous editions, taking what is best of all of them and trying to knit those experiences together into one cohesive game.

I have only done one read through so far of the Playtest packet, but I think I am pretty happy with the changes so far. I like the freedom and flexibilty that came with 3rd (3.5) edition, the return to imagination over rules of the original game, and the ease of plug and play from 4th.


I am not sure if the end result of the game will stay this way, but the lack of overlapping skills and feats is a welcome revision in my opinion. I also really enjoy the use of Ability Scores to determine Saving Throws. Many times Ability Scores just become a set of useless numbers that might at an obscure bonus to some feat or skill, in this edition they are at the forefront of the rules set as they should be.


Also the addition of Advantages and Disadvantages makes that game fun and imaginative once again. I am sure the unpredicatability of those 2 d20's rattleing around in a players hand will provide many an enjoyble gaming session.


Will be DMing the set this weekend, will post comments then on the outcomes and any hidden gems we might find then.     
I'm intrigued by the wide variety of "This looks just like (insert edition here)!" responses.  Seems like WotC hit their goal.


I was just thinking this.  To me it looks a lot like AD&D 2e, with 3e style ability modifiers and 4e style actual abilities for non-casters (they turned reaping strike and cleave into passive traits, not specific powers).  But I started with AD&D, so maybe it's just my perspective.



It is a matter of perspective.  I would wager that those who thinks this looks just like 3e do not have a tremendous amount of experience with editions that came before 3e.
It is a matter of perspective.  I would wager that those who thinks this looks just like 3e do not have a tremendous amount of experience with editions that came before 3e.


Sounds about right.  This is also day #1.  I'm wondering how people will feel a week from now after digesting and getting over some shock or unfamiliarity.
Maybe it's because I've played dramatically more 3/3.5/PF than 2nd, but when I was reading over the playtest, I more or less totally forgot I wasn't just reading the 3rd edition rules with some tweaks. (Although now that it's pointed out, I see the 2nd edition influences as well.) I didn't even think of it as a new edition as much as sort of the kind of "here are some minor tweaks to 3rd edition". To be fair, that's partially because some of Next's best advances over 3rd are things that are already present in Pathfinder, which has totally replaced 3.5 in my life at this point, so things like at-will cantrips seem so obvious to me now that I don't even think of them as being novel. The more I think about it, the more differences between 3rd and Next crop up, but my first impression was "If the final rules end up looking like this, why would I bother? This is just 3rd again, with way more 'but you can do it this way if you like' comments tossed into the text."
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Its actually more of an updated Basic DnD. The rules are almost the same except for a few spots.
I do see bits of other classes here but frankly, I like what I see. Simple, easy, clean. I don't know if my gaming group will go for it, but I like it. 

Dale McCoy

President of Jon Brazer Enterprises

Read my D&D 5E Blog and sign up for our D&D 5E Newsletter

Maybe there should be a poll: "which edition does this feel most like to you?"
Personally, from just reading over some the material that was in the packet, I have noticed that it wants to heavily favor 4E in terms of how weapons are categorized and in the fact that they included 2 forms of rest which I find sort of redundent especially sense most of the games I'm involved in have guys who have been playing since AD&D 1rst Edition. Even in the groups I play with using 3.5 don't really included true underground dungeons where you don't have access to lots of healing.
"ZMG, the playtest starts TODAY? I was too damn busy playing Diablo 3 that I forgot all about this stuff! I think I have some early 2nd and 3rd edition drafts around here somewhere... GOTCHA! Now hand me those 4e leaflets we were saving for GnollCon Poughkeepsie 2012... right! When the internee finishes with the layout... what? proofreading? Pffff... prooreading is for sissies... You listen to me now, upload the pdfs to that old Pentium100 we have in the back of the server room. I don't want no frigging playtest messing with my Demon Hunter!"
Pavieira, I'm not sure why, but I read that in the voice of Cave Johnson.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
"ZMG, the playtest starts TODAY? I was too damn busy playing Diablo 3 that I forgot all about this stuff! I think I have some early 2nd and 3rd edition drafts around here somewhere... GOTCHA! Now hand me those 4e leaflets we were saving for GnollCon Poughkeepsie 2012... right! When the internee finishes with the layout... what? proofreading? Pffff... prooreading is for sissies... You listen to me now, upload the pdfs to that old Pentium100 we have in the back of the server room. I don't want no frigging playtest messing with my Demon Hunter!"



This sounds about right...sadly.
Wizard's first rule: People are stupid.
Glad I'm not alone in thinking this looks terrible.  No tactical options beyond trying to get advantage.  I don't know if this has come up anywhere else, but advantage and disadvantage equate to a bonus or penalty or about +/- 4, making it significantly more important than combat advantage/flanking was.  


Patience.  Tactical combat is coming later down the line.  This is very early.


Leaving the tactical combat out of a game in which the supplied adventure is a series of combats and the map is a big grid seems completely stupid. 

I feel the need to complain about an early alpha of a game I haven't paid for yet!  The pixels are crooked! Where's my Book of Fastbending Dastardly? If I can't shoot my Elf-Witch Cutter Bow RIGHT NOW this game is BROKEN!!!!1111


Grow up. 
Glad I'm not alone in thinking this looks terrible.  No tactical options beyond trying to get advantage.  I don't know if this has come up anywhere else, but advantage and disadvantage equate to a bonus or penalty or about +/- 4, making it significantly more important than combat advantage/flanking was.  


Patience.  Tactical combat is coming later down the line.  This is very early.


Leaving the tactical combat out of a game in which the supplied adventure is a series of combats and the map is a big grid seems completely stupid. 


Since the adventure presented was and is being presented as it was in the early 80s before all the tactical rules. It was designed for this type of game.

Hopefully when the next playtest comes out they will put in the tacticle rules and a adventure design for them.
Sign In to post comments