NEW PACKET UP

Confirmed.  No email yet, but the usual download site has an updated packet.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Pfft. This is so ten minutes ago.

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

Rogue sucks. Hopefully my DM lets me chagne it before the next Encounters.
Rogue sucks. Hopefully my DM lets me chagne it before the next Encounters.


I'm glad you're taking the core function of the playtest to heart.  You know, where we play, to test, the things they give us, and give feedback.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Bran, you're the man!
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Looks like I timed getting home just about perfectly.
Bran, you're the man!





Thank you Sir
Now they just need to change the date on the download page.
Shields grant now a +2 AC bonus....
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct

Remember to keep your posts polite and on topic and refrain from making personal attacks and remarks. 
Nice to see my worst fears being confirmed.
...whatever
Nice to see my worst fears being confirmed.



Forced alignment again? That was mine. Also, it doesn't include unaligned or options for no alignment at all.
XP values for some monsters have changed.
Some quite dramatically.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Still LOADED with dead levels, too.
Nice to see my worst fears being confirmed.



Forced alignment again? That was mine. Also, it doesn't include unaligned or options for no alignment at all.



Nope. Doubling down on making PCs in general and the Fighter in particular mundane.
...whatever

Forced alignment again? That was mine. Also, it doesn't include unaligned or options for no alignment at all.



Sure it does (the "no alignment at all" part anyway). Not using alignment? Awesome! Then anywhere in the game where something says it's restricted by alignment doesn't count because you're not using it. Boom.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

Rogue lost Skill Mastery, but the pre-gen still has it? Which one is wrong?
Races haven't changed much and people probably won't like that Paladin's have to be lawful, though I don't really care.

Can't wait to actually playtest the differences though. 

Forced alignment again? That was mine. Also, it doesn't include unaligned or options for no alignment at all.



Sure it does (the "no alignment at all" part anyway). Not using alignment? Awesome! Then anywhere in the game where something says it's restricted by alignment doesn't count because you're not using it. Boom.



Yes, but the class doesn't imply that at all. It says you must be lawful. Also, the builds are entirely dependent on what alignment you choose, and are limited to only lawful stereotypes. It's very forced. There is also no general build for those who don't want to use alignment. No chaotic options, or Unaligned. As it is, it's very much pre-4e biased.

They flat out lied. They said they wouldn't be doing this again after the monk.
At least there's no mechanical repercussions for not acting within your chosen alignment.
Pick one, write it down, ignore it from then on out.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
At least there's no mechanical repercussions for not acting within your chosen alignment.
Pick one, write it down, ignore it from then on out.



Yes, but you're still forced to pick one. That's the issue. They lied to us. That's another issue.
All I care about is the mechanics tied to alignment.
If there aren't any, then I'm not sweating it.
I'll write Chaotic Naughty on my character sheet, then act however I wish.
Besides...if there's no mechanical repercussions tied to alignment, then NOT using it is a valid option. It won't be brought up outside of character creation.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft

Yes, but the class doesn't imply that at all. It says you must be lawful.



And if you aren't using alignment, that clause means nothing, and takes no effort whatsoever to ignore. Watch, I'll do it right now. See? No effort whatsoever.

Also, the builds are entirely dependent on what alignment you choose, and are limited to only lawful stereotypes. It's very forced.



No, they are tied to which Oath you choose. While by default they are tied to alignment, if you aren't using alignment, then they aren't. Very simple.

There is also no general build for those who don't want to use alignment.



Like most everything else, I imagine that you can pick-and-choose elements of the class, subject to DM approval. Or, we'll see it later. I don't know.

No chaotic options, or Unaligned. As it is, it's very much pre-4e biased.



1. Okay, first you're complaining about them tying the class to alignment, and now you want a chaotic option? How is that not tying it to alignment?

2. Paladins are champions of things. They are, thematically, somewhat - or entirely - extreme in their views. I don't see "Unaligned" being extreme really. As mechanics need to reinforce thematic tropes, I just don't see the Paladin and Unaligned fitting. (And, again, reference my previous point.)

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.


Yes, but the class doesn't imply that at all. It says you must be lawful.



And if you aren't using alignment, that clause means nothing, and takes no effort whatsoever to ignore. Watch, I'll do it right now. See? No effort whatsoever.

Also, the builds are entirely dependent on what alignment you choose, and are limited to only lawful stereotypes. It's very forced.



No, they are tied to which Oath you choose. While by default they are tied to alignment, if you aren't using alignment, then they aren't. Very simple.

There is also no general build for those who don't want to use alignment.



Like most everything else, I imagine that you can pick-and-choose elements of the class, subject to DM approval. Or, we'll see it later. I don't know.

No chaotic options, or Unaligned. As it is, it's very much pre-4e biased.



1. Okay, first you're complaining about them tying the class to alignment, and now you want a chaotic option? How is that not tying it to alignment?

2. Paladins are champions of things. They are, thematically, somewhat - or entirely - extreme in their views. I don't see "Unaligned" being extreme really. As mechanics need to reinforce thematic tropes, I just don't see the Paladin and Unaligned fitting. (And, again, reference my previous point.)




I'd like to see a chaotic option just to be inclusive, and an unaligned option for those who don't use alignment. That's really what unaligned is. I loathe alignment with a passion, and I'm forced to choose a stereotype based on alignment. 

They said they weren't going to do alignment requirements again. They did alignment requirements again. They lied. That is not acceptable. The alignment restriction part should have the caveat that you can choose these as pre built if you use alignment, and then give a list of general abilities if you don't. 

It implies they expect you to use alignment. It says it right in the class. Must be lawful. This is the same thing as the monk. I wouldn't pay a dime for this. It completely neglects the 4e design.
Initial thoughts:
1. Fighter is a little lackluster, but an improvement from the past versions, I think.  We are back to "MOAR Feats" being a balancing mechanism for the class.
2. The Fighter will be woefully inefficient for mimicking the Warlord, even if they add a specialty designed to do so.  The Warlord needs to be its own class.
3. What part of alignments should not be part of classes is so unbelievably hard for the designers to get through their heads?  There is no reason why an neutral or evil Paladin, evil Warden, or Good Blackguard should not be able to exist.  Alignment should be optional and outside of the mechanics.  They can put something in the fluff that typically Paladins are Lawful Good, but there should NOT be anything saying it is outright required.  This is moronic.
4. Skills are back to being keyed to an ability score, which I really like.  I really wish they would cut the list down a lot though.  Spot and Listen should be Perception, Climb and Jump should be Athletics, etc.  But, this is a step in the right direction.
5. Races are improved insofar that they no longer are shoehorned into using specific weapons.  However, these features are lost on classes like the Fighter, which sucks.
6. Still only four feats?  That really blows.  They should make it so you gain a second specialty at 11th level.  Levels 11-20 look pretty barren in that respect.
I think they need to toss it all and start over.

I'd like to see a chaotic option just to be inclusive, and an unaligned option for those who don't use alignment. That's really what unaligned is. I loathe alignment with a passion, and I'm forced to choose a stereotype based on alignment. 

They said they weren't going to do alignment requirements again. They did alignment requirements again. They lied. That is not acceptable. The alignment restriction part should have the caveat that you can choose these as pre built if you use alignment, and then give a list of general abilities if you don't. 

It implies they expect you to use alignment. It says it right in the class. Must be lawful. This is the same thing as the monk. I wouldn't pay a dime for this. I loathe alignment with a passion.



Okay, you rock on in your bitterness.

Those of us who are perfectly comfortable ignoring a sentence in a game's source material (that has no other bloody effect, I'd like to point out) will be over here having fun actually playing the game. 

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.


I'd like to see a chaotic option just to be inclusive, and an unaligned option for those who don't use alignment. That's really what unaligned is. I loathe alignment with a passion, and I'm forced to choose a stereotype based on alignment. 

They said they weren't going to do alignment requirements again. They did alignment requirements again. They lied. That is not acceptable. The alignment restriction part should have the caveat that you can choose these as pre built if you use alignment, and then give a list of general abilities if you don't. 

It implies they expect you to use alignment. It says it right in the class. Must be lawful. This is the same thing as the monk. I wouldn't pay a dime for this. I loathe alignment with a passion.



Okay, you rock on in your bitterness.

Those of us who are perfectly comfortable ignoring a sentence in a game's source material (that has no other bloody effect, I'd like to point out) will be over here having fun actually playing the game. 




I'm not forced into alignment based stereotypes in my other choices of games. DDN forces me into one. Being lied to by the developers is another big issue. It means I can no longer trust them in anything they say. Not just about this, but in anything. 

This design is just not very inclusive. It defaults to a specific type of game. If they had made specific alignment builds for those that want it, and a general option for those that don't, it wouldn't be so bad.

It also does have a mechanical effect. It effects what class features you get. It assumes you will be using alignment.

I think they need to toss it all and start over.


This
...whatever
I think they need to toss it all and start over.



There are some nuggets of good in here.  The favored enemy stuff is actualy pretty cool.  Loads better than a plain bonus.  I like the concepts of the Paladin Oaths, just not that they are linked directly to alignment.  If they did it without alignments, and just had them be different forms of the Paladin, that would be great.

Ultimately, I don't think the game is irredeemable, but there are a lot of things that need a lot of work.  And a lot of that stems from the designers trying to force a playstyle on everyone.  And that playstyle is the 3.5E Casters Rule with pre-4E style regimented alignment-based mechanics.
The warlordy stuff they gave the fighter is totally inadequate if its intended to be any kind of replacement for the warlord class, but if they're just intended to be additions to the fighter with no implications for the warlord, then I dig it. In fact, its really the only aspect of the fighter that interests me at all. Somehow the new fighter seems to be a strange combination of fairly fiddly and mechanically clunky, but not interesting at all--in other words, in trying to simultaneously go for simple and tactically interesting, they've produced a class that is neither.

Also, my first reaction to the Paladin is that the good version feels fine if pretty rote and uninspired, and the neutral and evil versions feel underdeveloped and like last minute additions. Warden as Paladin subtype could be cool if handled well, but this dude who's basically a standard paladin in every way except that he gets a few nature spells is not a Warden, anymore than a Fighter who can tell people to duck is a Warlord.

I think the Oaths should be just that--Oaths.

That is, you make a specific oath. You can choose from some suggestions or make your own. You get a benefit so long as you do everything in your power to keep your oath.

Why bring alingment into it? "Paladins make an oath which they endeavor to keep at all costs, and in exchange for doing so receive a mechanical benefit" is plenty flavorful and provides tons of grist for RP, without bringing alignment into it at all.
Paladins are champions of things. They are, thematically, somewhat - or entirely - extreme in their views. I don't see "Unaligned" being extreme really. As mechanics need to reinforce thematic tropes, I just don't see the Paladin and Unaligned fitting. (And, again, reference my previous point.)



Being a champion of something (whether specifically a god or not) doesn't necessarily mean you line up to the good/evil or lawful/chaotic access in any specific or meaningful way.
As an example, I have a 4e character that is a Paladin of Waukeen. As such she is "Unaligned", and is not specifically lined up with good nor evil. She is extremely aligned with commerce. That makes her opposed to a government, even a good one, that supresses commerce, even for good reasons. She is also strongly opposed to thieves, those who destroy fine goods, "protection" rackets, and so forth. Those most likely to be her enemies are probably those who are Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil. 
Her particular specific calling is to protect all of the world's prostitutes, since so few stand up for those of the world's oldest profession. And again, in many areas that makes the law as much an enemy as criminals.

Her views are extreme and unyielding and not really correlated with Good/Evil/Law/Chaos in any meaningful way.     

Those of us who are perfectly comfortable ignoring a sentence in a game's source material (that has no other bloody effect, I'd like to point out) will be over here having fun actually playing the game. 




This, many times.

The first thing I'll do is pick Cavalier, then, on the little line next to alignment, write "potato", then play it however I want.
I expect my players to do the same thing.
I refuse to get upset over a non-issue (game-wise).
As to whether or not the devs lied...that's a different matter.
If they did, in fact, say they would never mention alignment again in regards to character classes, then they should make a statement explaining themselves.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Yeah! Orzel's ranger idea got in! Other than that though, not that great.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
For me, the most important part of this package is that the Survey touches upon the Encounters program, which I am currently rocking. I'm hoping that, even more than keeping a 4ed version of it going, that they stick to the original vision of the program (simple pick-up game for both players and DMs).

However, I did say that I was interested in the package. I'll wait a while and watch the feedback to see if there is something interesting.

EDIT: On the subject of alignments, it's no skin off my nose in a playtest, but I don't want alignment baked into the system, so that DMs who a) don't know any better, or b) are jerks with it DON'T just ignore it. Best to rid it now, then let people add it later. But this is DDNext, so I doubt that will happen. 

"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


Those of us who are perfectly comfortable ignoring a sentence in a game's source material (that has no other bloody effect, I'd like to point out) will be over here having fun actually playing the game. 




This, many times.

The first thing I'll do is pick Cavalier, then, on the little line next to alignment, write "potato", then play it however I want.
I expect my players to do the same thing.
I refuse to get upset over a non-issue (game-wise).
As to whether or not the devs lied...that's a different matter.
If they did, in fact, say they would never mention alignment again in regards to character classes, then they should make a statement explaining themselves.



It isn't about the fact that you can just ignore alignment. It's that they stereotype them into alignments and make you choose between them. They also don't include every alignment.

Simply giving a general list of abilities for those of us that don't want to play with alignment at all would pretty much solve my issues with it. As it is, they assume you'll be playing with it by forcing you to choose. 

I'm not forced into alignment based stereotypes in my other choices of games. DDN forces me into one. Being lied to by the developers is another big issue. It means I can no longer trust them in anything they say. Not just about this, but in anything. 

This design is just not very inclusive. It defaults to a specific type of game. If they had made specific alignment builds for those that want it, and a general option for those that don't, it wouldn't be so bad.

It also does have a mechanical effect. It effects what class features you get. It assumes you will be using alignment.



And all this is why I so greatly prefer other game forums.

Look, clearly you have your mind made up that you were lied to, and the rules are somehow "forcing" you to use alignment. You've further concluded that you wouldn't buy this game.

So, alright then. Be done. Walk away. Go do other fun things.

Or, to put it another way: if you're not having fun, and just making yourself miserable (as you apparently are), why are you continuing to do this thing? 

I don't particularly care for alignment, either. Hell, I don't particularly care for classes but when I play D&D, I expect that's what I'm going to get. So I either deal with that, or I don't play D&D (or Pathfinder). While I would much rather play games like [insert numerous World of Darkness games here], sometimes I just want to kick down doors and take treasure. When that's not fun, I go do something else.

It's not that hard, and it's a thing I think a lot of people around here should decide for themselves. It'd certainly make the tone of the boards here a bit better, I should think - not to mention the obvious benefits to folks' blood pressure, heart rate, and general good health.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.



It isn't about the fact that you can just ignore alignment. It's that they stereotype them into alignments and make you choose between them. They also don't include every alignment. 



And those choices mean nothing.
Step 1: Pick class: Paladin / Cavalier.
Step 2: Pick alignment: write nothing at all.
Step 3: Profit!


Simply giving a general list of abilities for those of us that don't want to play with alignment at all would pretty much solve my issues with it. As it is, they assume you'll be playing with it by forcing you to choose. 



Easy.
Pretend that line that says, "You must be LG" isn't there.
Pretend it says, "You can be whatever alignment you wish".
Play to your heart's content.
Since you choose race and class (and pretty much everything else) before alignment, by the time you get to that little line, write whatever in the world you want there and game on.

They might assume we'll be using alignment.
By me and my table not using alignment, I have proven their assumption wrong.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft

I'm not forced into alignment based stereotypes in my other choices of games. DDN forces me into one. Being lied to by the developers is another big issue. It means I can no longer trust them in anything they say. Not just about this, but in anything. 

This design is just not very inclusive. It defaults to a specific type of game. If they had made specific alignment builds for those that want it, and a general option for those that don't, it wouldn't be so bad.

It also does have a mechanical effect. It effects what class features you get. It assumes you will be using alignment.



And all this is why I so greatly prefer other game forums.

Look, clearly you have your mind made up that you were lied to, and the rules are somehow "forcing" you to use alignment. You've further concluded that you wouldn't buy this game.

So, alright then. Be done. Walk away. Go do other fun things.

Or, to put it another way: if you're not having fun, and just making yourself miserable (as you apparently are), why are you continuing to do this thing? 

I don't particularly care for alignment, either. Hell, I don't particularly care for classes but when I play D&D, I expect that's what I'm going to get. So I either deal with that, or I don't play D&D (or Pathfinder). While I would much rather play games like [insert numerous World of Darkness games here], sometimes I just want to kick down doors and take treasure. When that's not fun, I go do something else.

It's not that hard, and it's a thing I think a lot of people around here should decide for themselves. It'd certainly make the tone of the boards here a bit better, I should think - not to mention the obvious benefits to folks' blood pressure, heart rate, and general good health.




This is called giving feedback. It is unacceptable design to force alignment on me, which the class does. It forces me into a box they created for a particular alignment. The idea behind it, and the fact that they lied, are unacceptable design to me. 

The class doesn't support the notion of all alignments or no alignments at all. It supports the notion of 3 narrow concepts based on alignment.

My feedback is that this is a huge issue for me. I will be providing that in my feedback. I did it for the monk, and the problem was solved. They lied and said it wouldn't happen again.

I'm sick of having issues with certain design aspects that they choose and having other people tell me I'm wrong for it. The class needs to be more open and less narrow. Alignment is making it VERY limited.
Sign In to post comments