Out with the old, in with the older.

I've enjoyed DnD for a long time, and I have the utmost respect for the people that design it, but after looking through the packet, I can't help but feel that this is a step in the wrong direction.  No edition is going to be perfect, everything has it's pro's and con's, and it seems obvious to me that the designers were trying to bring together the player bases from 3rd, and 4th edition.  However, it seems to me that they took the things I liked least from both editions, and put them together.  I liked the variety of options in combat that 4th had, making fighters just as interesting as casters.  And I liked haveing options for my skills, like in 3rd.  Where if I wanted to trade a little bit of specialization, I could have my characters do things that fit the 'character' instead of just the archetype.

This edition however seems to have left fighters back to simply hitting things with sticks repeatedly, AND made skills even more simplistic.  There are a few pro's to the system of course, I like advantages and disadvantages for example.  But that's a mechanic, not the general system, and as a whole, I'm afraid I feel like the system is somewhat lacking.  Perhaps my complaints will be addressed when I can actually see the character design process, but right now I truly feel like the whole system has become far to simplified.  I'm not trying to be mean or insulting here, but this is my honest opinion of what I'm seeing in these play-test packets, but as it is, I can't see me or my gaming group using this system heavily.  At this rate we'd either go back to either 4th or 3.5, (depending on whether we want a combat or story driving game at the time).  Or simply house-rule a version of 3rd ed. skills into 4th edition cobmat.  I hope that I end up wrong about this system, but untill proven otherwise I'm going to have say that D&D next has failed to meet the expectations I'd had of it.
I feel somewhat the same about the simplistic mechanics. Of course there are all the promises of advanced modules that can add all your hopes and dreams to the system and I'll hope t hat those are delivered. However, from what we just have at face value, it seems like a very simple system. No rules ('yet') for any other actions other than: move, attack, cast spells. And unless I somehow missed something, opportunity attacks/attacks of opportunity are gone as are disarms, trips, grapples, bull-rushes, overruns, ways of inflicting status effects of any kind, ways of applying advantage/disadvantage in melee..etc. Essentially anyone who wants to engage in any sort of non-spell related casting is reduced to: I attack. Or (for rogues) I hide, and then [next turn] I attack.

Of course, based on what I've read in other threads, people will jump on this assumption as simplistic. Of course you can do anything you want in combat! You can try to kick sand in their eyes or try to trip them with your cloak, etc.  However, these aren't rules. Even having something as simple as a "Stunt" rule could have given a list of possible actions that would give advantage/disadvantage or apply a status effect or apply a +/- to an action and suggested DC's for using those actions or what kind of ability save the monster would get against them.

These are of course the most -basic- of the basic rules. We have barebones. There's a handful of spells, abilities and 4 classes shown. We have been promised the stars with modules for skills, grid combat, powers, complex fighters, combat-useful rogues, etc. Like the rest of the people on these boards, I've seen that said and hope for it. But judging D&D Next SIMPLE off of what I have seen of the ruleset, I will not be making any use of them. And that's sad, since I've rarely seen a non-D&D system I've liked (other than houseruled systems using the chasis of 3.5 like PF). I'm much more interested in seeing future 4e content from a third party or look to pathfinder content for new things to game with. 
I think it's pretty clear that this is a reach back to even 1st edition beginnings.  I've played since 1st and I can honestly say over the years the game seems to have started to loose it's soul.  4th for me was the height of bland computer like gameplay, you hardly needed a DM, in fact you almost don't need players.

I think this is a clear reach to my generation and to try to bring them back.  I do however agree that for younger players they may have issues with this.  For that reason, I'm beginning to think we may see D+D publishing more than one edition of books/adventures at the same time.  I know they are going to TRY and make 5th modular so that if you do have a yonger group you can basically make it a 4th style but I'm just not sure if that will work.

We will have to wait and see, you have to admit though for Role Players...we do live in interesting times
Well, ya gotta keep in mind that this is a limited-scope, "highly controlled" playtest. Everything presented has been picked over by the devs and this is the combo they want to test right now. Shoot, the characters aren't even the entirely same ones from DDXP. Coming soon, to a play test near you will be more options for customization. I should probably reiterate that this is the BASIC rules set. As simple as the game gets. Themes and backgrounds, when you look under them on the character sheets have in fine print: "for a more old school feel, don't use these." I mean, complexity has yet to even work its way into it as far as we can see. I think what WotC was trying to accomplish here was to get you to 1) feel out the basic mechanics before they drop you head first into complexities. 2) help them ensure that the basic game is easy to play, and fun. 

That aside, I'm totally on board with the lack of complexity. I want to see all the juicy mechanical underbelly so I can rip it open, devour the meaty bits inside, digest it, and then see how it all turns out. Basically, I want to see all the things now. But I have to be patient... even though I don' wanna.
  I liked the variety of options in combat that 4th had, making fighters just as interesting as casters.  And I liked haveing options for my skills, like in 3rd.  Where if I wanted to trade a little bit of specialization, I could have my characters do things that fit the 'character' instead of just the archetype.




This sums up how I'm coming into 5e too.  The only thing I can say is this is supposed to be an over simplified stage of the playtest.  They are listening to us right now, and will be giving us more complexity as the playtest builds.  Six months from now if I'm feeling the same way we are now, then I'll really start to worry.  For now, we should express our opinons but remain hopeful that there is more around the corner we just haven't gotten to see it all yet.

Well, ya gotta keep in mind that this is a limited-scope, "highly controlled" playtest. Everything presented has been picked over by the devs and this is the combo they want to test right now. Shoot, the characters aren't even the entirely same ones from DDXP. Coming soon, to a play test near you will be more options for customization. I should probably reiterate that this is the BASIC rules set. As simple as the game gets. Themes and backgrounds, when you look under them on the character sheets have in fine print: "for a more old school feel, don't use these." I mean, complexity has yet to even work its way into it as far as we can see. I think what WotC was trying to accomplish here was to get you to 1) feel out the basic mechanics before they drop you head first into complexities. 2) help them ensure that the basic game is easy to play, and fun. 

That aside, I'm totally on board with the lack of complexity. I want to see all the juicy mechanical underbelly so I can rip it open, devour the meaty bits inside, digest it, and then see how it all turns out. Basically, I want to see all the things now. But I have to be patient... even though I don' wanna.

I severely hope you are correct, but then I simply have to wonder, what exactly are we play-testing.  Advantages/Disadvantages?  What else is there NEW that hasn't already been tested?  I can understand them wanting things to be simplistic, but if they don't give us ANYTHING complex, what exactly are we supposed to be playtesting?  Wizards has been doing this for a very very long time, they don't need a few thousand people to playtest something that isn't changed at all, so I'm really not sure what to think beyond being afraid that the system really will end up being this simplistic.
Well, ya gotta keep in mind that this is a limited-scope, "highly controlled" playtest. Everything presented has been picked over by the devs and this is the combo they want to test right now. Shoot, the characters aren't even the entirely same ones from DDXP. Coming soon, to a play test near you will be more options for customization. I should probably reiterate that this is the BASIC rules set. As simple as the game gets. Themes and backgrounds, when you look under them on the character sheets have in fine print: "for a more old school feel, don't use these." I mean, complexity has yet to even work its way into it as far as we can see. I think what WotC was trying to accomplish here was to get you to 1) feel out the basic mechanics before they drop you head first into complexities. 2) help them ensure that the basic game is easy to play, and fun. 

That aside, I'm totally on board with the lack of complexity. I want to see all the juicy mechanical underbelly so I can rip it open, devour the meaty bits inside, digest it, and then see how it all turns out. Basically, I want to see all the things now. But I have to be patient... even though I don' wanna.

I severely hope you are correct, but then I simply have to wonder, what exactly are we play-testing.  Advantages/Disadvantages?  What else is there NEW that hasn't already been tested?  I can understand them wanting things to be simplistic, but if they don't give us ANYTHING complex, what exactly are we supposed to be playtesting?  Wizards has been doing this for a very very long time, they don't need a few thousand people to playtest something that isn't changed at all, so I'm really not sure what to think beyond being afraid that the system really will end up being this simplistic.



I think they are actually looking to see if their rules are as right as they think they are. If they get a lot of feedback about other stuff, but every keeps saying the rules flowed and the numbers seemed fine, then they know this part is done and can move on the the next layer. That's why I feel that everyone needs to take a step back and just try out the rules. Do they feel like DnD to your group? Do they make the game flow? Are there any glaring errors (the armor tables might fall in here)? That kind of thing.

d

Shadow Network DM

Yeah, the Adventure they provided has a section explaining what were supposed to be testing.

It is basically do these rules support your normal style of play.
Yeah, the Adventure they provided has a section explaining what were supposed to be testing.

It is basically do these rules support your normal style of play.



I'm pretty sure what the OP and I were both saying are that: No, no it does not fit or support our normal style of play. Playing this set of rules, as both a DM and a player, does not feel (or has not so far) feel like playing a game that I would want to continue to play.

Of course, its possible the module concept may work. I have less hope than I first had when D&D next was announced, but its not gone. I liked 3.5 and 4e for different reasons and thought a mix of the two would be fantastic. Oh well, it could be that the modules can make this game fit my opinion of what D&D is. I suppose we'll see..
It's strange to move back to the old basic attack dichotomy.  Time will tell whether or not we're going to go back to such a "plain" style of combat.  Time will tell.  I'm personally hopeful that it will work out alright.
Sign In to post comments