D&DN Is Not 3.75


 A response to the other thread claiming 3.75. My guess is it may be a popular opinion from the 4th ed crowd. D&DN has more 4th ed in it than 3.5 and even 4th ed had elements of 3.5 in it such as feats, d20 mechanics, an evolved skill system etc. Elements of 4th ed were also introduced in 3.5 with the Book of Nine Swords being the famous one.  I do not see anyone complaining about 3.5 elements in 4th ed. Some things also only share the same title as well just like various things in 4th ed usually paragon paths that were 3.5 prestige classes.

 Anyway there is very little in the current playtest that can actually be pinned on 3.5 that was not also recycled in 4th ed and that is mostly d20- feats and skills for example. Skills in D&DN right now resemble a 3.0/3.5 skill list but their resolution is more simialr to 4th ed and the skill dice is new AFAIK.

I will have a quick look through the packets roughly in the same order as every players handbook ever printed.

 Races.
No racial penalties check. 4th ed influence. No raical powers, not a 4th ed influence, no +2  except for humans either so that indicates a pre 3rd ed presence. Humans in 3.0-4th ed and PF were very similar as well, bonus feat and skil etc. Right now the races are more pre 3rd ed with 4th ed influence.

Classes.
 Vancian is back OH NOES they are reprinting 3rd ed. 4th ed was the only edition to not have vancian casting in its 38 year history so 4th ed is actually the odd one out here. Thats not a 3.5 influence it is a pre 4th ed influence. Of the individual classes.

 Cleric.  Probably the stongest 3.5 class influence in the game via level 8/9 spells (pre 3rd ed priests /clercs only had lvl 7 max) and they also have a domain that while different does evoke 3.5 here IMHO.

Fighter.
 Not even close to the 3.5 fighter although some of the manuveurs to evoke the naes of 3.5 feats mechanicially they duplicate 4th ed status effects (push, knockdown etc). I honestly see more 4th ed in the current fighter than 3.5. Maybe 4th ed essentials. This is not a bad thing and I like the current fighter although it is boring after level 10. It also doesn't resemble the pre 3rd ed fighter much.

Monk
 Uses some 3rd ed terminology that was probably borrowed from pre 3rd ed. Resembles the 4th ed monk more than the others due to the primary fact the D&DN Monk doesn't actually suck like it did in 3rd ed and maybe 1st. 2nd ed monk was a priest varient with spells. Also hits hard so it is kind of a striker in 4th ed terms. Doesn't really resemble any editions monk that much but 4th ed probably has the most influence but its marginal. Once again thats a good thing IMHO. Monk still sucks in Pathfinder. No alignment restrictions is a definate 4th ed influence.

Rogue
 More or less a new class. If one looks hard enough you can see 3.5, 4th and Star Wars Saga influences in it. Whatever it is it barely resembles the 3.5 Rogue and its 4th ed influence is not a strong one excet that it hits hard which is a bit like a striker I suppose. Very little 3.5 influence either way.

Wizard
 AH the sky is falling its a 3.5 wizard. Well for starters it is actually more or less a 2nd ed wizard with 4th ed at wills strapped on. The at wills resemble 4th ed ones more than 3.5 reserve feats anyway. The wizard lacks the power of the 3.5 one, and it has no 3.5 class features. The only class features it really has is spells and what it gets at level 1.

 Skills. Maybe a 3rd ed influence but its really d20. 4th ed had 3rd ed influence in regards to its skills.

Spells. More or less 2nd ed here in terms of power level and iconic spells like fireball do not scale similar to 4th ed powers. Since 1st ed -3rd ed all used a similar magic mechanic this is more of a pre 4th ed influence than directly 3.5. The pre 4th ed influence is stronger IMHO than the modest 4th ed influences here (at wills, capped spells)

Monsters.
The recharge mechanic has been used for Dragons since at least second ed but D&DN uses the 4th ed recharge format. The layout of the monsters also resemble 4th ed stat blocks and some of the have abilites simialr to 4th ed ones.  The monsters are probaby 4th eds strongest influence on D&DN. They are not 3.5 monsters by any means although they may have a simplicity to them that 3.5 lcked. 3.5 was actually the odd man out here in terms of simple monsters as BECM,1st,2nd, and 4th were all reasonably basic and simple.

 Overall the 3 main things that stand out for me in 3.5 era D&D would be the power level of the spellcasters, complexity and options both in bloat and the way one could multiclass. D&DN spellcasters are nerfed in that context and are similar to second ed ones. D&DN isn't that complex when compared to 3.5 era either and we do not know how multiclassing will work yet. Prestige classes are also going to be coming apparently but we do not know if they wil be like 3.5 ones or resemble a 2nd ed kit or 4th ed paragon path. See previous point about terminology that even 4th ed used form 3.5. Only 1 class out of 5 even resembles a 3.5 class with the wizard while being vancian resembles the pre 3rd ed wizard with at wills strapped on.

 Very little distinct 3.5 is actually present in D&DN, alot of pre 4th ed ideas are there but not many of them date from the 3.5 era. The 4th ed influences in the game are mostly positive ones as well although I personally like things such as racial stat penalties and alignment restrictions (more or less due to tradition).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I don't think reason really matters to the people who want edition X. They will complain no matter what is released. I just find it funny that the strongest fans of 4E seem to be the people that hated D&D prior to 4E. 
+10 Zard, + freaking 10.

Very good post.
My two copper.

A really interesting analysis, and very true.


The core issue with this process is that 4e is the odd one out. It's the most different from everything else, which means that the departure from 4e is going to be far and away the most visible.

I find it amazing how 5E manages to pick sparse, seemingly random elements of 4E while accurately missing all of the features which were key to that system. 
Savage Worlds is closer to 4E than this playtest is. 

Let's PLEASE not turn this into another "It's not 4e enough" thread. There are plenty of them already.
My two copper.
I find it amazing how 5E manages to pick sparse, seemingly random elements of 4E while accurately missing all of the features which were key to that system. 
Savage Worlds is closer to 4E than this playtest is. 




Yes, I agree with that. Laughing
haha yeah I think the point of the post is that it's neither 3e nor 4e. It's actually a lot closer to AD&D with some new stuff and some 3&4e stuff.
I don't think reason really matters to the people who want edition X. They will complain no matter what is released. I just find it funny that the strongest fans of 4E seem to be the people that hated D&D prior to 4E. 



 I loved D&D from basic till AD&D 2E, and I am a strong 4E fan today, think it´s a very well build system. Lots of 4E fans played and loved old editions back in the day.
I don't think reason really matters to the people who want edition X. They will complain no matter what is released. I just find it funny that the strongest fans of 4E seem to be the people that hated D&D prior to 4E. 

That's not generally true. Most of us actually loved D&D before 4E. That's why we were playing it. Loving something doesn't keep you from recognizing that it's not perfect in every facet, though, and when 4e addressed a lot of the issues 3.5 had and introduced some cool new ideas, I happily embraced 4e.

As somebody who has extensive experience with both 3.5 and 4E, I find the notion that Next has more 4E in it than 3.5 patently absurd to the extent of being essentially indefensible. I wouldn't call it 3.75; it's definitely made too many lateral moves for that to be at al apropos, but it's clearly a 3.5ish system. Things like "the monk essentially has all of the form of the 3.5 monk and none of the form of the 4E monk, but I'm putting it in the 4E column because the monk doesn't suck, which makes it more like the 4E monk than the sucky 3.5 monk" are borderline gibberish. "The monk will be a mechanically impotant" wasn't a 3.5 design decision. It's just something that happened because they didn't bother to care.

And guess what? I'm actually okay with Next resembling 3.5 more than other editions. It may be just impossible for someone who sees Next's development as some kind of validation or repudiation of their playstyle to even comprehend the idea that someone would be okay with the edition strongly resembling an edition they don't think is quite as good, but I genuinely feel that it's okay if Next looks more like 3.5. I really, really liked 3.5.

What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine.

The idea that Next needs to maintain some kind of careful balance between different editions to make everyone happy is nonsense. Next needs to be a good game. I don't care if Next is 0% 4E as long as it's a good game. I would humbly suggest, however, that Next is much more likely to be a good game if that's not the case. I don't want Next to just be more 4E; I want Next to be more good, and there's a large supply of good that they're randomly ignoring in 4E. I actively dislike many of their attempts to allegedly incorporate more 4E because they reveal fundemental misunderstandings about what 4E players actually care about.
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.
I find it amazing how 5E manages to pick sparse, seemingly random elements of 4E while accurately missing all of the features which were key to that system. 
Savage Worlds is closer to 4E than this playtest is. 




 The things key to 4th ed are probably hated by the non 4th ed players.  Not saying thats right/wrong/fair it is what it is.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Let's PLEASE not turn this into another "It's not 4e enough" thread. There are plenty of them already.



It's not a matter of enough, too little or too much. The point is not having an 'x edition quota' in 5E.
If 4E is left out because the design and business goals push the product in a different direction, fine. 
But if instead this is supposed to appease 4E players by giving them something they can regonize as their edition of choice I'm afraid it will be missing the mark by far. 

I don't think reason really matters to the people who want edition X. They will complain no matter what is released. I just find it funny that the strongest fans of 4E seem to be the people that hated D&D prior to 4E. 

That's not generally true. Most of us actually loved D&D before 4E. That's why we were playing it. Loving something doesn't keep you from recognizing that it's not perfect in every facet, though, and when 4e addressed a lot of the issues 3.5 had and introduced some cool new ideas, I happily embraced 4e.

As somebody who has extensive experience with both 3.5 and 4E, I find the notion that Next has more 4E in it than 3.5 patently absurd to the extent of being essentially indefensible. I wouldn't call it 3.75; it's definitely made too many lateral moves for that to be at al apropos, but it's clearly a 3.5ish system. Things like "the monk essentially has all of the form of the 3.5 monk and none of the form of the 4E monk, but I'm putting it in the 4E column because the monk doesn't suck, which makes it more like the 4E monk than the sucky 3.5 monk" are borderline gibberish. "The monk will be a mechanically impotant" wasn't a 3.5 design decision. It's just something that happened because they didn't bother to care.

And guess what? I'm actually okay with Next resembling 3.5 more than other editions. It may be just impossible for someone who sees Next's development as some kind of validation or repudiation of their playstyle to even comprehend the idea that someone would be okay with the edition strongly resembling an edition they don't think is quite as good, but I genuinely feel that it's okay if Next looks more like 3.5. I really, really liked 3.5.

What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine.




 THere is very little of the 3.5 monk in the D&DN monk beyond a few shared keywords and I did say even when compared to te 4th ed monk the resemblences are superficial.

 Without AEDU power structures and roles alot of thie things that worked in 4th ed won't work in D&DN. Its the same as some things which worked in 2nd ed won't work in D&DN. Want out of combat stuff invent a new category or feasts/talent/non wepaon proficinecies for example that only let you take non combat related stuff.

 A simple idea, one 2nd ed pulled off and somehting both 3.5 and 4th ed struggled with.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


The things key to 4th ed are probably hated by the non 4th ed players.  Not saying thats right/wrong/fair it is what it is.



Yes, I do reognise that - see my post above.
That's why this idea of the edition for everyone is unlikely to succeed. Dual system support would be a more practical and viable solution if the goal is keeping the playerbase united under the brand.

The things key to 4th ed are probably hated by the non 4th ed players.  Not saying thats right/wrong/fair it is what it is.



Yes, I do reognise that - see my post above.
That's why this idea of the edition for everyone is unlikely to succeed. Dual system support would be a more practical and viable solution if the goal is keeping the playerbase united under the brand.



 Not sure if I am the only one who has noticed his but one could switch the fighter manuveurs out and plug in powers if one wanted to. Just saying. They can't really do that until they get the fighter to where they want it/is needed.

 Dual system suport has only existed back in 1st ed and early days of 2nd when they had BECM runing alongside AD&D. If 4th ed can't support itself with D&DN not even on the shelf dual support is really a waste of time. Perosnally I hpope they reprint soehitng like the Adventurers Vault and see how well it sells.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 



 Not sure if I am the only one who has noticed his but one could switch the fighter manuveurs out and plug in powers if one wanted to. Just saying. They can't really do that until they get the fighter to where they want it/is needed.



I'm skeptical. This system is not build to be modular that way, despite the best intentions. Yes, it is possible to slot in 'powers' but will they just work? Will balance hold?
Powers worked in 4E because thay were part of a coherent and integrated structure, there is no guarantee they will fit in this new environment.
I'd rather they would focus on doing the game they want at its best rather than speding efforts in this exhausting (and possibly pointless) exercise of trying to hit 5 pigeons with a stone.

Dual system suport has only existed back in 1st ed and early days of 2nd when they had BECM runing alongside AD&D. If 4th ed can't support itself with D&DN not even on the shelf dual support is really a waste of time. Perosnally I hpope they reprint soehitng like the Adventurers Vault and see how well it sells.



Dual support will not require double printing: just adding stats blocks in crunchy bits for 4E in future material (not rulebooks). This would broaden the audience, and thus revenue potential from sales  and DDI subscriptions. Question is, can 5E support itself if it loses part of the playerbase in a niche, shrinking market?



 I don't see them doing dual stat blocks. It would have been liking 4th ed adventures having dual 3.5 stat blocks. It will jsut drive up the cost of printing. If D&DN has DDI I hope they keep the 4th ed DDI up somewhere even if its in an options menu instead of front page.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 



As somebody who has extensive experience with both 3.5 and 4E, I find the notion that Next has more 4E in it than 3.5 patently absurd to the extent of being essentially indefensible. I wouldn't call it 3.75; it's definitely made too many lateral moves for that to be at al apropos, but it's clearly a 3.5ish system. Things like "the monk essentially has all of the form of the 3.5 monk and none of the form of the 4E monk, but I'm putting it in the 4E column because the monk doesn't suck, which makes it more like the 4E monk than the sucky 3.5 monk" are borderline gibberish. 



Could not have put it better myself... and I tried, till I saw this post.  


What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine.
 




That's going in my signature!  

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

THere is very little of the 3.5 monk in the D&DN monk beyond a few shared keywords and I did say even when compared to te 4th ed monk the resemblences are superficial.

Flurry of Blows, the ki strike/undaunted strike mechanic, Purity of Body, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of Sun and Moon and Empty Body would all seem to disagree with this assertion.  I'll grant you that Perfect Self was significantly changed.

The DDN Monk is exactly the same as the 3.5 Monk.  A hodge-podge of odd abilities completely unrelated to the theme of the class.  What part of the Monk ethos outside of D&D has immunity to poisons, disease, or the ravages of aging?  What Monks outside of D&D can talk to every living creature, become ethereal, or slip magically between spaces like a dimension door spell?
THere is very little of the 3.5 monk in the D&DN monk beyond a few shared keywords and I did say even when compared to te 4th ed monk the resemblences are superficial.

Flurry of Blows, the ki strike/undaunted strike mechanic, Purity of Body, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of Sun and Moon and Empty Body would all seem to disagree with this assertion.  I'll grant you that Perfect Self was significantly changed.

The DDN Monk is exactly the same as the 3.5 Monk.  A hodge-podge of odd abilities completely unrelated to the theme of the class.  What part of the Monk ethos outside of D&D has immunity to poisons, disease, or the ravages of aging?  What Monks outside of D&D can talk to every living creature, become ethereal, or slip magically between spaces like a dimension door spell?



If you read the OP, the Monk is using abilities from 1E and 3E, so claiming the Monk is a 3E clone doesn't work unless you consider all Pre-4E Editions to be 3E. Most of the Monks abilities that you comment on were from 1E, where the Monk was not about Kung Fu. The monk represented a mystic unrelated to any real world counterpart. This is why Monks in 2E were a Priest Kit. The Kung Fu Monk was created in 3E and continued into 4E (and sadly into Next).

I would rather see the Monk either return to it's roots (droping the Kung Fu nonsense) or become the Psionic Kung Fu Master. Mixing the two (as 3E has done) just doesn't work for me.
THere is very little of the 3.5 monk in the D&DN monk beyond a few shared keywords and I did say even when compared to te 4th ed monk the resemblences are superficial.

Flurry of Blows, the ki strike/undaunted strike mechanic, Purity of Body, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of Sun and Moon and Empty Body would all seem to disagree with this assertion.  I'll grant you that Perfect Self was significantly changed.

The DDN Monk is exactly the same as the 3.5 Monk.  A hodge-podge of odd abilities completely unrelated to the theme of the class.  What part of the Monk ethos outside of D&D has immunity to poisons, disease, or the ravages of aging?  What Monks outside of D&D can talk to every living creature, become ethereal, or slip magically between spaces like a dimension door spell?



If you read the OP, the Monk is using abilities from 1E and 3E, so claiming the Monk is a 3E clone doesn't work unless you consider all Pre-4E Editions to be 3E. Most of the Monks abilities that you comment on were from 1E, where the Monk was not about Kung Fu. The monk represented a mystic unrelated to any real world counterpart. This is why Monks in 2E were a Priest Kit. The Kung Fu Monk was created in 3E and continued into 4E (and sadly into Next).

I would rather see the Monk either return to it's roots (droping the Kung Fu nonsense) or become the Psionic Kung Fu Master. Mixing the two (as 3E has done) just doesn't work for me.

That is fair.  The Monk has always been a hodge-podge of odd abilites that are completely unrelated to the class.  IIRC though, some of these abilities were added in when 3.0 came out.  I don't have my 1st Ed book or my copy of 2nd Ed's Player's Choice books, so I cannot be sure.
THere is very little of the 3.5 monk in the D&DN monk beyond a few shared keywords and I did say even when compared to te 4th ed monk the resemblences are superficial.

Flurry of Blows, the ki strike/undaunted strike mechanic, Purity of Body, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of Sun and Moon and Empty Body would all seem to disagree with this assertion.  I'll grant you that Perfect Self was significantly changed.

The DDN Monk is exactly the same as the 3.5 Monk.  A hodge-podge of odd abilities completely unrelated to the theme of the class.  What part of the Monk ethos outside of D&D has immunity to poisons, disease, or the ravages of aging?  What Monks outside of D&D can talk to every living creature, become ethereal, or slip magically between spaces like a dimension door spell?



 Not claiming there is 0 3.5 influence but monks had a similar speaking ability in 1st Ed except it applied to plants instead of anyone. They recycled a few labels from 3.5 and in some cases gave the monk similar abilites but the foundation of the D&DN monk is very new. Basically you spent martial dice to spam at wills which is a evolution of 4th ed powers. Monk and Fighter both replace 2W, 3W etc with martial dice you can spent to add a manuveur (usually a 4th ed effect, push, trip etc).

 4th ed reused some labels as well. Unless it is a 100% carbon copy of a 3.5 ability (very close or reworded will also do) it may or may not be 3.5. Alot of the 3.5 things people are complaining about predate 3.5.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

THere is very little of the 3.5 monk in the D&DN monk beyond a few shared keywords and I did say even when compared to te 4th ed monk the resemblences are superficial.

Flurry of Blows, the ki strike/undaunted strike mechanic, Purity of Body, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of Sun and Moon and Empty Body would all seem to disagree with this assertion.  I'll grant you that Perfect Self was significantly changed.

The DDN Monk is exactly the same as the 3.5 Monk.  A hodge-podge of odd abilities completely unrelated to the theme of the class.  What part of the Monk ethos outside of D&D has immunity to poisons, disease, or the ravages of aging?  What Monks outside of D&D can talk to every living creature, become ethereal, or slip magically between spaces like a dimension door spell?



 Not claiming there is 0 3.5 influence but monks had a similar speaking ability in 1st Ed except it applied to plants instead of anyone. They recycled a few labels from 3.5 and in some cases gave the monk similar abilites but the foundation of the D&DN monk is very new. Basically you spent martial dice to spam at wills which is a evolution of 4th ed powers. Monk and Fighter both replace 2W, 3W etc with martial dice you can spent to add a manuveur (usually a 4th ed effect, push, trip etc).

 4th ed reused some labels as well. Unless it is a 100% carbon copy of a 3.5 ability (very close or reworded will also do) it may or may not be 3.5. Alot of the 3.5 things people are complaining about predate 3.5.

I found my 1st Ed book.  There is no undaunted strike mechanic, immunity to aging, Abundant Step, or Empty Body in the book I have.  It seems pretty clear the DDN Monk owes more to the 3.5 Monk than the 1st Ed Monk.
 It is still only a few keywords though and most of the monk is built around the MD dice. There is only a handful of keywords and abilites along with the cleric domain that really evoke 3.5 out of hte 5 classes.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 It is still only a few keywords though and most of the monk is built around the MD dice. There is only a handful of keywords and abilites along with the cleric domain that really evoke 3.5 out of hte 5 classes.

Mechanics are not keywords.  It is a lot more than just a few, and a lot more than just keywords.
My gaming experience started with AD&D 2nd, where I spent a little under a decade.
I was with 3X for most of the ride, altho I had grown bored of it and wandered off for the last few years to fidget with True 20 or other pseudo-D20 systems.
I played 4E from it's inception until a few months after Essentials was released.
I really didn't like Essentials at all. So I cannot compare it with any veracity...

However, DDN feels more like a patische of ideas from various editions, not quite polished in implementation, being torn in multiple directions.
There are several Pre-WotC elements, there are many Pre-4E elements, there are a scant few 4E elements.
Now, I'm still just sinking into the current playtest going to 20th, but my general feel has most resembled pre-WotC D&D, this may be due to limited race and class choices, it may be due to an absence of the elements I recall disliking most from 3X, however, the play reminds me more of pre-WotC. The Rogue is pretty obviously unfinished and in flux, hard to say what is being aimed at for me. The Fighter has a few meaningful decisons to make round to round, giving it a feel that is almost new, closer to 4E than any other Fighter I remember seeing. ect...

Now, the issue is more direction than anything else to me. I'm not feeling the game move in a 3X direction anymore than I feel it move in a 4E direction. It most resonates with what I recall pre-WotC, not in details, but in general play. There are any number of reasons this may be, however, I personally don't have any of the odd stomach reactions I do to 3X clones.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
Its a grand total of 10 abilities using words on 1 class and not even all of those abilites duplicate the 3.5 ones. And a few of them are basically out of combat stuff.

 The clerics domains evoke the image of 3.5 but are done in a totally different way.

 I just had a quick look in the 4th ed PHB and OMG it use 6/8 3.5 class names, feats, d20, several races form 3.5 as well ZOMG. Its also got fireball, magic missile, lightning bolt, cleave and power attack gah its 3.5.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The DDN Monk is exactly the same as the 3.5 Monk.



God I wish this was true. Monks would have actually been cool. Seriously where the hell were those ki abilities and monastic traditions when I wanted them?

A hodge-podge of odd abilities completely unrelated to the theme of the class.  What part of the Monk ethos outside of D&D has immunity to poisons, disease, or the ravages of aging? 



Someone isn't familiar with some of the eastern definitions of enlightenment. Mystics like that are supposed to have a variety of abilities.

What Monks outside of D&D can talk to every living creature, become ethereal, or slip magically between spaces like a dimension door spell?



You should check out some old eastern myths like Journey to the West.
The DDN Monk is exactly the same as the 3.5 Monk.



God I wish this was true. Monks would have actually been cool. Seriously where the hell were those ki abilities and monastic traditions when I wanted them?

A hodge-podge of odd abilities completely unrelated to the theme of the class.  What part of the Monk ethos outside of D&D has immunity to poisons, disease, or the ravages of aging? 



Someone isn't familiar with some of the eastern definitions of enlightenment. Mystics like that are supposed to have a variety of abilities.

What Monks outside of D&D can talk to every living creature, become ethereal, or slip magically between spaces like a dimension door spell?



You should check out some old eastern myths like Journey to the West.

Calling the main character in Journey to the West a mere Monk is like calling the Pacific Ocean a pond.
Its a grand total of 10 abilities using words on 1 class and not even all of those abilites duplicate the 3.5 ones. And a few of them are basically out of combat stuff.

 The clerics domains evoke the image of 3.5 but are done in a totally different way.

 I just had a quick look in the 4th ed PHB and OMG it use 6/8 3.5 class names, feats, d20, several races form 3.5 as well ZOMG. Its also got fireball, magic missile, lightning bolt, cleave and power attack gah its 3.5.

I'm not saying DDN is D&D 3.75.  I'm saying the DDN Monk is very similar to the 3.5 Monk and shares some of its same design flaws to almost an extreme.

I'd have to say that DDNext is a mixture of several different editions, stirred together in a large cauldron. However, WotC has cut-paste crunch and fluff from 3.5 so often when refering to DDNext, you have to wonder.  

Let's PLEASE not turn this into another "It's not 4e enough" thread. There are plenty of them already.



Well, when the OP is asserting "Is TOO 4e enough!", people who disagree with him are going to go there.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

I'm not asserting anything of the sort. Its just funny watching peple rage when there is very little direct 3.5 stuff in D&DN with a bit of 4th ed influence and alot of pre 3rd ed.

 I'm not claiming that it is to like 4th ed and the 4th ed influences I do see are mainly positive ones. Alpot of the 3.5 stuff people are claiming to see predates 3rd ed so it oue be more accurate to say pre 4th ed than blaming everything on 3.5 which seems to be some holy kick ball for some of the 4th ed crowd.

 There was a bit of 3,5 in 4th ed as well and its probably about the same amount as in D&DN (d20, skills, feats).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The DDN Monk is exactly the same as the 3.5 Monk.



God I wish this was true. Monks would have actually been cool. Seriously where the hell were those ki abilities and monastic traditions when I wanted them?

A hodge-podge of odd abilities completely unrelated to the theme of the class.  What part of the Monk ethos outside of D&D has immunity to poisons, disease, or the ravages of aging? 



Someone isn't familiar with some of the eastern definitions of enlightenment. Mystics like that are supposed to have a variety of abilities.

What Monks outside of D&D can talk to every living creature, become ethereal, or slip magically between spaces like a dimension door spell?



You should check out some old eastern myths like Journey to the West.

Calling the main character in Journey to the West a mere Monk is like calling the Pacific Ocean a pond.



Not that I'm disagreeing with the analysis, but I think a student of the myth might compare a "typical monk" to Xuanzang (Or Sun Wukong, either one works.) by contrasting a muddy pond with a crystal clear bowl of rainwater. But it's hardly the only example of mythical warriors with unique abilities of a very similar nature to what is seen in the monk of multiple D&D editions.
I'm not asserting anything of the sort. Its just funny watching peple rage when there is very little direct 3.5 stuff in D&DN with a bit of 4th ed influence and alot of pre 3rd ed.

 I'm not claiming that it is to like 4th ed and the 4th ed influences I do see are mainly positive ones. Alpot of the 3.5 stuff people are claiming to see predates 3rd ed so it oue be more accurate to say pre 4th ed than blaming everything on 3.5 which seems to be some holy kick ball for some of the 4th ed crowd.




But your argument doesn't make sense, for a number of reasons (which you seem to find 'funny'):

People point out a number of features from DDNext that are similar to features of 3.5. Your thread here says, 'Ah hah! Those features were in 1st edition!' or 'Those actually started in Second Edition!', as if that shows that DDNext is not like 3.5. That is a non-sequitur: it does not show that DDN is unlike 3.5; it just shows that it is like 1e, 2e AND 3.5. You don't seem to be aware of this flaw in your logic.

 

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

I don't know if Zardnaar can be convinced that people who like 4E do not, in general, hate 3.5 or want to beat up on it. As long as he(?) continues to see things through that lens, it's going to be easy for him to continue to come to erroneous conclusions like that.
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.
 Then they should say they do not like it (pre 4th ed) rather than blame it on 3.5.  Don't like vancian? Its not 3.5's fault (at least not directly)

 4th ed is the odd one out in various areas, hence things like ediiton wars and Pathfinder. It is what it is.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Every packet seems to move closer to 3E.

Packet 1 was probably closest to AD&D, and every packet moves closer to 3E after that.

We even now have a shift feat which replicates the dreaded 5 ft step from 3E. Welcome back Step'n'Spell.

The importance of specialties is diminished and now we're just shown a feat list, 3E style. The skill list is entirely a 3E rip-off, complete with Use Rope (lol).

Spellcasting classes are almost entirely 3E. The cleric, like his 3E counterpart is an awesome melee machine, and Cleric-zilla is back in full form. The wizard is 3E, more spell slots and scaling spell DCs. The rogue is getting evasion and uncanny dodge, just like his 3E counterpart. Yeah that's entirely 3E.

Magic items are the only throwback, though my guess is that this exists only up until they produce the rules for magic item creation, in which case the game goes total 3E, and welcomes back the magic item xmas tree with open arms.

Ironically, the best idea to come out of 3E, the open multiclassing, has been entirely left out.

 Then they should say they do not like it (pre 4th ed) rather than blame it on 3.5.  Don't like vancian? Its not 3.5's fault (at least not directly)

 4th ed is the odd one out in various areas, hence things like ediiton wars and Pathfinder. It is what it is.



Now that, I can agree with: DDNext certainly has a pre-4th edition feel.    

Just for the record, I've played every edition since Basic/AD&D (though not a lot of 2nd), and I have liked them all. But the present edition just seems to be most like 3.5, and more like it with each packet. It seems to me that 3.5 is their touchstone and their baseline, more than any other edition.  

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

Every packet seems to move closer to 3E.

Packet 1 was probably closest to AD&D, and every packet moves closer to 3E after that.

We even now have a shift feat which replicates the dreaded 5 ft step from 3E. Welcome back Step'n'Spell.

The importance of specialties is diminished and now we're just shown a feat list, 3E style. The skill list is entirely a 3E rip-off, complete with Use Rope (lol).

Spellcasting classes are almost entirely 3E. The cleric, like his 3E counterpart is an awesome melee machine, and Cleric-zilla is back in full form. The wizard is 3E, more spell slots and scaling spell DCs. The rogue is getting evasion and uncanny dodge, just like his 3E counterpart. Yeah that's entirely 3E.

Magic items are the only throwback, though my guess is that this exists only up until they produce the rules for magic item creation, in which case the game goes total 3E, and welcomes back the magic item xmas tree with open arms.

Ironically, the best idea to come out of 3E, the open multiclassing, has been entirely left out.





there is no need to "shift and spell" since casting in melee doesn't cause any problems.  heck there isn't even a problem with firing a bow in melee unless you shoot something behind the guy in melee with you.  in fact shift really only benefits melee attackers trying to switch targets without provoking opportunity attacks.
Seems like 3.75 to me. Walks like a duck (3.75) talks like a duck (3.75)...it's a duck (3.75).
I'm not asserting anything of the sort. Its just funny watching peple rage when there is very little direct 3.5 stuff in D&DN with a bit of 4th ed influence and alot of pre 3rd ed.

 I'm not claiming that it is to like 4th ed and the 4th ed influences I do see are mainly positive ones. Alpot of the 3.5 stuff people are claiming to see predates 3rd ed so it oue be more accurate to say pre 4th ed than blaming everything on 3.5 which seems to be some holy kick ball for some of the 4th ed crowd.




But your argument doesn't make sense, for a number of reasons (which you seem to find 'funny'):

People point out a number of features from DDNext that are similar to features of 3.5. Your thread here says, 'Ah hah! Those features were in 1st edition!' or 'Those actually started in Second Edition!', as if that shows that DDNext is not like 3.5. That is a non-sequitur: it does not show that DDN is unlike 3.5; it just shows that it is like 1e, 2e AND 3.5. You don't seem to be aware of this flaw in your logic.

 



Ergo since we have d20 rolls, six attributes, skills, and feats, it's a lot like 4e to me. 4.5 maybe?
My two copper.