Maybe I'm in the Minority

I'm really unhappy with the direction things are taking. Next seems to fail to hold onto things that were good and added a bunch of things that were bad. It completely ignores a unified design concept and feels like a schlew of random elements tacked together.

I get that this is early in the life cycle, but all in all it does not catch my interest.


There are a few things I might snag for homeruling like Advantage/Disadvantage and Normalized attacks and defenses. I like a game that is mathmatically clean and designed with some elegance and simplicity. Neither of these things seem to currently be present.

All in all my network of players are pretty disappointed in what we're seeing.
As I've already elaborated in a few other threads, I'll just say that I totally agree.
To paraphrase a former president, we aren't going forward to the future, we're going past to the back.

But then, the whole point of 5e was to throw 4e under the bus and welcome back the grognards.  Hopefully, the playtesting will fix this.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Though I don't completely agree, I do lean towards this perspective.  I do like my look at the wizard... with at-wills and dailies it feels like a half step backwards, though with the martial classes it feels like a full step backwards to 3.5.  Without changes I'd would just opt to play 3.5 with the many supplements that add in martial options vs playing a martial class in 5e.
I just really wanted a system that was better, this seems to be backwards entirely. And the fact that classes are completely imbalanced infuriates me. The idea that you should be 'mundane' because you don't have magic is a bit preposterous.
So far, the Beta's coming out almost exactly as I was expecting it to. That's not a good thing for me.

I'm not getting high hopes unless the devs reveal some mods I agree with. Or, if they at least admit that the prototype thus far is "pre-modded" for grognards, and the true baseline game looks much different under the hood.
imo it is best not to compare it to 4e, they are so completely different i think they are just totally different games. at this time, 5e is a retro-clone. i do think 5e is a pretty good retro-clone though.
To paraphrase a former president, we aren't going forward to the future, we're going past to the back.

But then, the whole point of 5e was to throw 4e under the bus and welcome back the grognards.  Hopefully, the playtesting will fix this.


Actually that's not the whole point, and a lot of the things that the people who like 4e are wanting (I include myself in this camp) they've said are coming later on.

Don't write it off completely yet.  Things will change.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
To paraphrase a former president, we aren't going forward to the future, we're going past to the back.

But then, the whole point of 5e was to throw 4e under the bus and welcome back the grognards.  Hopefully, the playtesting will fix this.


Actually that's not the whole point, and a lot of the things that the people who like 4e are wanting (I include myself in this camp) they've said are coming later on.

Don't write it off completely yet.  Things will change.


i believe you will fight for it mand!
I will be and I have been.  And they are listening.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I really don't want to go back to 1st/2nd ed.

Typed weapon damage?  Really?  That'll make it easier on the DM to run stuff...can't wait for weapon speed...

As of now, I see no point in being a human...get rid of skills, make them ability saves....we need non-clerical combat healing, so we'll get rid of it...now hit dice can be used out of combat, but only if you have a healer's kit...

I can't say much impresses me at this point... 
To paraphrase a former president, we aren't going forward to the future, we're going past to the back.

But then, the whole point of 5e was to throw 4e under the bus and welcome back the grognards.  Hopefully, the playtesting will fix this.


Actually that's not the whole point, and a lot of the things that the people who like 4e are wanting (I include myself in this camp) they've said are coming later on.

Don't write it off completely yet.  Things will change.



And until we see actual follow through we will value promises as what they are, talk.
To paraphrase a former president, we aren't going forward to the future, we're going past to the back.

But then, the whole point of 5e was to throw 4e under the bus and welcome back the grognards.  Hopefully, the playtesting will fix this.


Actually that's not the whole point, and a lot of the things that the people who like 4e are wanting (I include myself in this camp) they've said are coming later on.

Don't write it off completely yet.  Things will change.




I have only got 400 errors on attempts to download from work here.. will try at home. I dont have any intension of writing it off myself, at minimum the ideals of a modular system are a positive thing.
  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."

 

If this is the 'base game' I'm unimpressed,
it has grognardism heavily stressed.
The die isn't cast
(we don't need to look to the past),
but modularity must pass the test!

Really? People think this is a step backwards? 

It seems to be capturing elemnts of all the editions. Wizards use at wills and dailies, the fighter can basically get action points at level two, and has the at will attack power of doing damage even on a miss (that was only in 4th ed, no other eiditon gave fighters the ability to do damage on a miss. At least, not as part of the core rules). The ability to spend HD to heal during short rests is pretty much a reincarnation of the healing surge system.

Clerics have channel divinity powers, just like in 4th, and we see defender elements showing up such as the itnerrupt shield block where you can help protect an ally, and stoping movement of enemies that try to move past you. Older elements creep in, such as spells lasting 1 minute or 10 minuts (instead of 4th eds "it either lasts a turn, or the fight, or untill you stop spending a minor to sustain.") And some wizard spells are pretty 4th edish, such as mirror image, which can be used as an interupt, or ray of frost which now dose no damage but stops movement, and sleep just making people move slower, then maybe falling asleep if they fail a save and have less than 10 hps.  

Now, if you don't like that you need a healers kit to heal during short rest, and would rather be able to spend HD during short rests without needing a healers kit, then that is something we can voice an opinion about. As for balance, keep in mind, all these classes can interchange their themes and backgrounds, and more thems and backgrounds will be avalible later. Some help more with exploration or interaction instead of combat, which means you can build your character to be better at different game elements, instead of allways having to build a character with combat in mind. But you can still build combat focusd characters if you want to. So that is something to keep in mind when trying to gague balance. 

What seems news is the skill system, which appears to be a combo of pre 3.x ability checks combined with bonuses for skill training, but without all the crazy scaling and overly long list of skills that 3.x had. 

I agree that the human not getting any racial bonuses kind of sucks, and I am not sure why the wizard does not really get any bonus abilities at 2nd level, (and his familar at 3rd kind of sucks too but, familars allways seemed to suck and, there is allways the option to take a different background or theme). but there is a difference between addressing these issues, and saying the game is a step backwards.  
I have to admit I love the playtest so far.  Only the healing part gave me any pause.  A simplified streamlined 1e/3e hybrid is exactly my desire.  The bits of 4e that are in it may even be things I like about 4e.  Who knows.

I think they are betting that AEDU is not something even most 4e people have to have.  If that's true then D&D is hopelessly fractured.  Many that reject it do so largely because of this approach. 

 
How about the step back to 1 action and a move?  There were arguements over what was allowed before, but now there are plenty of "non-action" actions that are "free".
The fighter has a fraction of the options and flexiblity than in 4e.  The wizard seems like an interesting balance.  Keep in mind at-wills didn't come from 4e, the mixing of at-wills, encounters, and dailies came in 4e.  3.5 introduced at wills in the warlock class, a class I thoroughly enjoyed (including the things they didn't bring succesfully into 4e like the summon swarm, constant spider climb, disembodied hand, etc).

Like I said I think it's a half step back, hopefully with a full step forward that will bring this all ahead of all the editions. 
Moes,

My roommate and I were just talking about this!  I feel thus far that Wizards has done a fantastic job combining editions in one fluid system.  And this is at the alpha stage of a playtest!  Sure there are some kinks to work out, but thats why its the playtest and not the final version of the game.  For the most part, though, I'm liking what I see! 
It is perhaps the best system I have seen thus far.  I don't care for 4e.  There are only a few questions from the rules that our playtest group have encountered and thus far we've made our own rules for them....  Want to swap weapons in a fight?  Some might say that it is 'free' because it isn't mentioned.  We felt it was just an oversight and came up with our own rules.

Otherwise, it's been a load of fun and I feel like I am actually playing D&D again.
I'm really unhappy with the direction things are taking. Next seems to fail to hold onto things that were good and added a bunch of things that were bad. It completely ignores a unified design concept and feels like a schlew of random elements tacked together.

I get that this is early in the life cycle, but all in all it does not catch my interest.


There are a few things I might snag for homeruling like Advantage/Disadvantage and Normalized attacks and defenses. I like a game that is mathmatically clean and designed with some elegance and simplicity. Neither of these things seem to currently be present.

All in all my network of players are pretty disappointed in what we're seeing.



I understand how you feel. It is similar to my feeling when I faced 4th edition. This time with the early 5th rules I'm feeling very good because I very welcome the step back and the restart from the origin. But I remember my bad feeling when I recognized that the rules from 3, 3.5 and 4 moved step by step away from the D&D I liked so much.
I'm not sure if there will be a good solution for both of us - but I really hope WotC is able to design a 5th edition which will allow both of us to have a lot of fun with the game.
I'm beginning to notice a trend:  players (like myself) who are 4th edition fans are not a fan of DND Next, and fans of 3rd edition are.  Why?  Because DND Next  is really a streamlined 3.0.  
I'm beginning to notice a trend:  players (like myself) who are 4th edition fans are not a fan of DND Next, and fans of 3rd edition are.  Why?  Because DND Next  is really a streamlined 3.0.  



It's more a streamlined 1e (2e) with 3e and 4e additions.
I agree that there are some pretty glaring flaws, and I admit I miss some of that complexity present in the last two (and a half) editions. The classes fail to inspire me, and the fighter in particular is about as interesting as warm mud. But the basic rule structure feels so solid I can't help but feel a little optimistic. I say this as someone who thinks Savage Worlds is one of the greatest games of all time, so if you're someone who thinks simple = dumbed down, I can understand why you're not excited.

Also, this accusation of everyone who feels positively about 5th edition as "grognards" is absurd. I never played first or second edition, and I like how this is shaping up. 5e supporters are grognards just as much a 4vengers are "ADD kids who play WoW", which is to say not at all.
I love you guys.
I'm really unhappy with the direction things are taking. Next seems to fail to hold onto things that were good and added a bunch of things that were bad. It completely ignores a unified design concept and feels like a schlew of random elements tacked together.


Because nothing in this world is uniform or the same, why should the system reflect that?  Some things will inheriently have advantages.  You don't need to change the whole damn system to try and fix it.  It's not a failure in the system.  You work within it to give those at a disadvantage secondary traits as a counterbalance.  It needs to be more natural than artificial.
I'll take fun over natural. 

At this (admittedly early) point, I'm glad I still have all my 4e stuff.  I still have hope, but gyeagh this playtest seems really icky to me.  We'll see later on tonight, after my group gets a little game together.
I'll take imagination over mathematics Wink
And 4e has both :D....wait, where's the problem with that?
Because nothing in this world is uniform or the same, why should the system reflect that?  Some things will inheriently have advantages.  You don't need to change the whole damn system to try and fix it.  It's not a failure in the system.  You work within it to give those at a disadvantage secondary traits as a counterbalance.  It needs to be more natural than artificial.


Yep, that's why we play fantasy games, to explore reality.
Furthermore, why should anyone expect a game to be fair? 

I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
And 5e seems to add a pinch "old school" for "old fashioned players" like me Innocent
Blatant Lies



I'll take fun over natural. 




I'll take imagination over mathematics Wink


And 4e has both :D....wait, where's the problem with that?



And 5e seems to add a pinch "old school" for "old fashioned players" like me



Which I think is good, I personally just wish it had a larger pinch of 3.5 and 4e in there (meaning options)... but I'm sure it will come in some manner.
Because nothing in this world is uniform or the same, why should the system reflect that?  Some things will inheriently have advantages.  You don't need to change the whole damn system to try and fix it.  It's not a failure in the system.  You work within it to give those at a disadvantage secondary traits as a counterbalance.  It needs to be more natural than artificial.


Yep, that's why we play fantasy games, to explore reality.
Furthermore, why should anyone expect a game to be fair? 




LOL Laughing

....dragons does not exist in reality? And I'm not a Wizard??

However - I'm not searching a fair game - D&D is a cooperative game where I want to have fun with my friends. It is not a competition. I do not need a balanced game. The game should be a reliable basement of helpful rules on which we can experience unbelievable adventures, epic battles, horrible dungeons...
I'm not loving what I see:  3/4 Cover?  Really??

And do I really need to learn the difference between Cloud, Cone, Cylinder, Line and Sphere??


Plus, the return of the single attack Fighter and the elimination of encounter abilities just kind of stinks.

Daren      

I've been trying to come into the playtest with an open mind, but it's been tough.   I've played all the editions and 4E, though flawed, is my favorite.  I was fairly skeptical about most of what was proposed in the L&L columns and a fair amount of what we saw in the design blogs.  I (and my whole group) utterly despised what we played at DDXP.   So I was wary of what we would see on the first stage of the open playtest. 


There are a lot of things I dislike (ability checks inexplicably disguised as saving throws being at the top of the list) in today's packet.   If the game were released as is, it's fairly unlikely I would play it. 


That said, what we saw today is a HUGE improvement over the steaming pile from DDXP (one of the least fun RPGs I have ever played).  This, more than anything I've seen or heard so far, gives me hope that the game can evolve into something really good. 

I love D&D more than I could ever love a human child.

Just say no to retro!
The idea that people are okay with an 'unbalanced,' 'unfair' game absolutely boggles my mind. Why on earth would anyone be okay with a 5 person party where one player gets all the cool toys and everyone else just carries their junk for them?

And how can people define what is a 'natural' progression for magic and the like?

As for the math, if the math isn't balanced the game breaks quite easily.

I am totally okay with putting out a game that is lightweight and flexible but everything should be consistent across the board so anyone can pick up any piece and make sense out of it. The fact that people are advocating for hodge-podge mechanics and unbalanced game play confuses me entirely.

Now, in terms of this being an Alpha test, it's not. A lot of this stuff was released in January at the con. Much of what we had issues then haven't changed. I am still open to this edition turning out okay, but at this point I am not on board.
I personally do hope for a D&D Next that is closer to 3.5 but I also how that they don't simply repeat all the mistakes they made and don't learn from the good things from 4e.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that a party in 3.5 could have several different members and none of them just stand around, at least once you wander outside of core. For more info just look at a party of Warblade (Tome of Battle), Factotum (Dungeonscape), Dread Necromancer (Heroes of Horror) and Binder (Tome of Magic) all are kind of obscure but if you have the books or know someone who does that party contains no 2 people who are working off the same system yet they all play well together.
imo it is best not to compare it to 4e, they are so completely different i think they are just totally different games. at this time, 5e is a retro-clone. i do think 5e is a pretty good retro-clone though.



I have to agree with Froth on this one. I play a ton of 4e and D&D Basic (BECMI) and they might share the same D&D name, but that's pretty much it. 4e is simply a very different game from 5e (which feels so much like an update of Basic), which actually makes me kind of happy because it means I'll still be able to find 4e gaming groups well into the future. As far as retro clones go, this is very good and extremely playable even in this simple form. I really want to dig into the character creation system because the devil is always in the details, but so far my retro side likes what I see and my 4e side is happy because this is different from 4e.

It's apples and oranges. Play what you like.
There are some things I liked about the retro approach. Less emphasis on a battlemap and removing the idea of purchasing magic items are good. I'm also happy to see that monster stat blocks are so much smaller now. These are great ideas from AD&D.

However, not all of it was good.

The idea of going back to a boring old fighter and a rogue more limited than 2nd edition's version... that I'm less enthusiastic about. Also what's the deal with humans going back to getting no benefits at all?

So far this seem less like unifying the editions and more like edition 2.75.
The idea that people are okay with an 'unbalanced,' 'unfair' game absolutely boggles my mind. Why on earth would anyone be okay with a 5 person party where one player gets all the cool toys and everyone else just carries their junk for them?

And how can people define what is a 'natural' progression for magic and the like?

As for the math, if the math isn't balanced the game breaks quite easily.

I am totally okay with putting out a game that is lightweight and flexible but everything should be consistent across the board so anyone can pick up any piece and make sense out of it. The fact that people are advocating for hodge-podge mechanics and unbalanced game play confuses me entirely.

Now, in terms of this being an Alpha test, it's not. A lot of this stuff was released in January at the con. Much of what we had issues then haven't changed. I am still open to this edition turning out okay, but at this point I am not on board.



Sorry for confusing you. As I already mentioned I'm an "old fashioned player". When I learned D&D imagination was the key factor - and playing more important than mathematics. If a campaign was "unbalanced" for a longer period it was mainly because the DM was a bit inattentive. It never happend that one player got all the cool toys - there are always possibilities for a DM to avoid such situations. The important point is: not mathematics or dices should rule the game. The main task for all players at the table including the DM is to help that everyone will enjoy the game - because it is a game and not a competition. This is the most important rule.
However - that's how I learned playing D&D.

Sign In to post comments