in what way is Next improvment over your current favorite edition of the game ?

I mostly play 4th edition, i love that the turns go faster. 
I play 2nd Edition, most of the time, with a little bit of 4th, and I like it's blended the two, or at least tried to, since combat goes faster and just the entire design has a more classic feel to it.
Ability checks. Love 'em. Much better that push-button skills. "I'm trained in arcana, is there anything arcane I can do?"

Exploration rules - very nice.
It currently isn't.
But it's shaping up to be, if it keep on the track its going presently.
My favorite edition is 2E, and the sheer wealth of options, races, classes, kits, settings, and so on will take time to be rivaled by DDN. It's looking great so far, though. If WotC can keep an edition around more than 4 or 5 years, it could easily surpass 2E in my eyes. Forgive me if I'm doubtful, though.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Well, it definitely plays faster than 4e. I also love advantage/disadvantage and the way resistances and vulnerabilities work, a neat way to cut down on the abuse inherent in previous editions with bonuses/penalties/resistances/vulnerabilities all stacking to ludicrous extremes.
It isn't

Not in any sense 
...whatever
I play pathfinder

I love that magic items are no longer a part of the core math (aka they are not assumed) and that they are no longer just big boring static stat boosts.

Not a single other thing that I see as an improvement though. Well? Maybe.... nope... no there really isn't anythig else. Quite a lot of downgrades actually.
I like that fighters and rogues have become primarily at-will and encounter-oriented, w/out specific named abilities (as done in 4e essentials). I think bounded accuracy gives me a better sense of balance across monsters and classes such that I'd want to work it into 4e (if I run a 4e game ever again).
I like how they implemented Orzel's favorite enemy. Excellent use of feedback from the forum.
As said above, I do like ability score rolls over skills. I prefer the decoupled skills/abilities, but that's so houseruleable it's a minor quibble.
Oh! Druid! I actually want to play the class now. In no edition before did shapeshifting casters appeal to me.
I like paladins by ethos/creed. It's how I had 4e paladins work in my games.
In spite of how happy I am w/ certain things, there are a few items which don't "feel" d&d to me. But, this isn't the thread for criticisms, and I still need to play a little more before offering feedback.
"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
Oh yeah! Exploration! I hope it's the basis for Next's version of a skill challenge. It looks fun. Can't wait to test it.
"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
I prefer 4e.  I like that next combat is faster than 4e, but it's overshot the sweetspot by so much that I would still rather play 4e.  So the only thing I can come up with in which Next has improved on anything I could get from an older edition is pushing skills to backgrounds instead of classes.  That was a good move.  Of course, pushing them into feats and putting in skills like "break object" and "drive" alongside skills like "stealth" were mistakes, so on balance I would again take 4e.  And I love the flavor bits they've added to magic items, although pretending that "not assumed" is the same as "not true" is quite possibly the stupidest thing they've done so far (not the worst thing, but the stupidest).  

They've come up with one or two good ideas, most of which are terribly implemented and crammed into a completely farked system.  If they took those one or two ideas and implemented them in 4e with a few other tweaks, there would be a game worth playing.  As it stands, unless there's a dramatic change in direction by launch time, I'm giving next a pass.
in what way is Next improvment over your current favorite edition of the game ?



My favorite edition is AD&D. I don't play D&D anymore because 3rd edition wasn't fun anymore, 4th edition wasn't my thing, and nobody wants to play AD&D these days.

It's hard to say because I'm looking at a very incomplete version of the system.

Compared to AD&D, this is what I would consider an improvement:
- A streamlined system.
- Backgrounds. I love being able to play a thief-like fighter.
- Bound accuracy.
- Casters don't look as bad at higher levels (haven't tried them) and don't suck as much at lower levels.
- Action economy.
- The skill system is still better than AD&D but I really don't like it.

And then there are things I don't think are good or bad, they're just different:
- Classes.
- Feats.
- 4th edition style hit points and hit die.
- Increased complexity of options in combat.

And then there are steps in the wrong direction:
- Ability scores have too much impact on combat statistics.
- Spell save DCs increase faster than saving throws.
- Advantage/disadvantage mechanics. I find it clunky and wierd that they're not stackable.
Well... there's still a year, man. I hope you stick w/ the playtest and continue to be a proponent of the 4e playstyle. It needs to be supported by Next.
"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
I'm comparing what is comparable, ie. the core system only. Current edition played : 4th.

- Fast combat: But it has lost a huge tactical part. On the other hand, if it could pull tactical while in ToTM, chapeau.

- Backgrounds: Where a player have to think about the backstory of his character, and it is meaningfull. Huge improvement.

- Exploration rules: These are neat and I long to playtest them for months. Cool that it is not a skill challenge system.

- Specialty: The overall design is good. Actually, this could be very good if specialties were feeling more like specialties than just a mere empowering system. Though, I can't count the number of times when these blocks of feats would have been usefull in my ten last years of DMing.


I like that fighters and rogues have become primarily at-will and encounter-oriented, w/out specific named abilities (as done in 4e essentials). I think bounded accuracy gives me a better sense of balance across monsters and classes such that I'd want to work it into 4e (if I run a 4e game ever again). I like how they implemented Orzel's favorite enemy. Excellent use of feedback from the forum. As said above, I do like ability score rolls over skills. I prefer the decoupled skills/abilities, but that's so houseruleable it's a minor quibble. Oh! Druid! I actually want to play the class now. In no edition before did shapeshifting casters appeal to me. I like paladins by ethos/creed. It's how I had 4e paladins work in my games. In spite of how happy I am w/ certain things, there are a few items which don't "feel" d&d to me. But, this isn't the thread for criticisms, and I still need to play a little more before offering feedback.



If you like 4E and BA, you should play 4ENext.  4ENext is 4E with BA.  To play 4ENext, all you have to do is use a larger die than d20 to make your checks.  I reccommend 2d20.   BA is implemented when a larger die is used.   You would have change all DC's to fit the new die though.  Just subtract 10 and add the mid range of the new die.  For example, if a DC in 4E is 19, in 4ENext it is 19 - 10 + Mid Range.  That's it, your 4ENext is ready to play.   
It isn't

Not in any sense 



Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
So far it hasnt shown anything I think is better than 4th. What Im looking for though is a system too play along side 4th. I like all of the old system(while aknowlegding flaws in all of them).

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I play mostly 4e and PF, and I love how loose and fast the system is with rulings. The less "structured" feel allows me more freedom as a DM, at least that's how I "feed".
My two copper.
I'm a pre-4th edition fan,  with 3rd edition slightly above 1st and 2nd.

Advantages
Ability checks and the option of bypassing the die roll when it makes sense
Bounded accuracy seems like a fair idea (but needs opened up to include +x weapons)

Negatives
At-will spells
Mandatory backgrounds/specialties/class features instead of open character development
The Magic Items system really bothers me,  I don't like the Weapons of Legacy design,  or the Magic the Gathering rarities.

Potential major negatives
I am not fond of the idea of the 4th edition races being back
I am not fond of the idea of the Warlord being back

At this stage,  I don't see enough good to outweigh the bad in 5th edition.  If it continues on it's present track,  I'll end up buying Pathfinder instead.                
Its not. Since discovering Myth and Magic (AD&D d20 based retro clone) any advantage D&DN had evaporated. AD&D+d20= done deal. Between M&M and Pathfinder there is not that much D&DN can do. D&D Saga at this point would be required to salvage D&DN. $12 to play d20 AD&D and use my 2nd ed material and easily convert 3rd ed, PF and some 4th ed stuff. Sorry WoTC. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

...

...

The current packages are free.
I already bought Pathfinder after I downloaded the Dec. playtest release. I prefer AD&D over anything else thus far. This isn't for me. It offers me nothing that AD&D does -any better.  I personally see it as a poor retro clone of  dumbed down 3e. This is just my personal take. Hence hearing friends rave over P.F. drove me over the edge, and it's a good game ( if overly fiddley) vs. this which is a "Blah". I am still reading the new packet but not impressed yet.
Compared to my favorite roleplaying games in the wider market no dnd edition I've played (ad&d through 4th) ever even ranked on a system level.  I loved the creative, non-mechanical output of ad&d.  What ddn gives my group and myself is speed and ease of play.  And the joy of the ddn forums where any thread that asks for positive responses attracts the sad/mad faces with claims of the superiority of other editions and other edition clones and how they will play those happily whilst still getting on the forums to complain about a playtest that gets them all twisted up inside...despite having access to games that they like better.  I don't get on ford forums to complain about the inferiority of their vehicles because I have happy access to not-a-ford.  
I play mostly 4e and PF, and I love how loose and fast the system is with rulings. The less "structured" feel allows me more freedom as a DM, at least that's how I "feed".



Me too.   

For whatever reason, everytime I play 4e (or DM it) players tend to focus much more on mechanics.   With D&DNext so far, players more often just say what they want to do and the DM tells them what to roll.   I like that.

I also like quicker combats and how easy it is to vary encounter difficulties and modify monsters to taste.

     

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

@ OP

Right now, it's not.

My group and I favor 2e AD&D.  We had hopes for 5th since it was supposed to streamline gameplay so that combat moved much quicker (such as in the pre-WotC versions of D&D).  But the all consuming focus on "combat balance" and MMO / boardgame concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles that WotC have gravitated towards in the recent years doesn't interest me.

I don't care for an edition where the theif or rogue is looked upon as a DPS instead of a theif or rogue.  Or the cleric is more a fighter/mage rather than a traditional cleric.  Or where the wizard has been reduced to a novelty act, capable only of parlor tricks that clear weak fodder in combat or make non-combat tasks more convenient, rather than actually feeling like a wizard from great books and movies as the earlier editions did.

Is 2nd edition perfect?  Not by a long shot.  But if I have to choose an edition of D&D, it's definitely the one for me.

Thankfully, there's Dungeon Crawl Classics, which actually managed to make fighters VERY fun to play while preserving traditional story type roles and feel for all classes.  They tamed magic without nerfing it into oblivion.  Magic comes at a cost.  It's risky, chancing loss, missfire, and/or corruption with every casting of a spell.  And basically requires a player to make a roll to see if you can even cast the spell, in addition to the traditional save required by most spells if you do manage to cast it.  Wizards PC's in my game using the DCC system tend not to even cast a spell unless it's needed, and in that sense, gives them a Gandalf like feel.  Magic keeps it's earlier edition potency and feel but is tamed from a balance perspective by different methods than simply nerfing both the wizard spells and class.  And fighters deal good damage and are capable of so much more thanks to advanced critical tables and dice, and the Mighty Deed of Arms feature.  Is DCC perfect?  No.  The "funnel" is fun from time to time, not for every game.  Personally, I'd like to see more options, sort of like an "Advanced" DCC.  But the system flows.  We've been flying through adventures with it.  It's dangerous and challenging.  And right now, it's what feels best for my groups and I.  Next developers could definitely take some ideas from it and other fluid systems that have a traditional D&D feel but with more modern and balanced mechanics.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg)

DCC d20 based? I noticed they have Jeff Easley doing some of the art.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

DCC d20 based? I noticed they have Jeff Easley doing some of the art.



Yes.  It's a retro clone of OD&D but with some new and modern mechanics.

And it's not my intention, in bringing it up here, to advertise it, but rather to encourage more mechanic ideas and options for Next.  Just want to make that clear.  It came up at the end of my post as part of my thought process and is used as an example for ideas and approaches alternative to those currently being used.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg)

Mention away;). I have noticed a lot of grognards raving about it and Goodman Games was one of the better 3rd PP in the 3rd ed era. I thought it was more based on 1st ed AD&D as opposed to OD&D. Thats a blast from the past lol. 

 I do not think WoTC gets it at times. It seems grognards are developing a taste for d20, just not the way 3rd and 4th ed were done.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

4e has been my favorite game of D&D.  I enjoy it as a 're-imagined' take (if you will) on D&D.  New races, new classes, new cosmology, all that jazz.  I'm a longtime player and 4e felt like I was getting in on the ground floor; D&D felt fresh and new again, not just the same ol', same ol'.

Personal opinion:  The Next playtest feels like a step backwards, opposite the approach of 4e.  Doesn't mean the finalized game will end up this way but I can't help but be concerned.  4e feels like an actual game system, Next feels like a hodge-podge.  It's a playtest though, so I'm trying to keep an open mind.

One thing I am glad is making a comeback is Vancian casting.  4e kinda lost that with the idea of everyone having powers (whether exploits, prayers, or spells).  That's really all I'm holding out for in Next.  So, I'm happy ;).

It would be nice if Next becomes an 'evergreen' edition of D&D, a game fans of all editions can sit down and play at the same table.  There'd be no need for another edition every few years, Next could remain in print and on the shelf for years.  That was the original impetus for the edition change, yeah?  It's a longshot sure, but I haven't given up hope just yet myself.  Have to wait-n-see.
/\ Art
Mention away;). I have noticed a lot of grognards raving about it and Goodman Games was one of the better 3rd PP in the 3rd ed era. I thought it was more based on 1st ed AD&D as opposed to OD&D. Thats a blast from the past lol. 

 I do not think WoTC gets it at times. It seems grognards are developing a taste for d20, just not the way 3rd and 4th ed were done.



I refer to it as an OD&D retro primarily due to the fact that the Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling are a class in it's mechanics rather than being a separate element to building a character.  I'm not a fan of this, so I've houseruled the traditional races into the game, granting each some traditional features from various editions of D&D.  That way players can play one of the primary classes as whatever race they prefer.  I've also made some other house rules that make it closer to AD&D and even 2nd ed AD&D as opposed to OD&D.

The whole system is easily houseruled, like older versions of D&D, and it plays amazingly well with adventures and creatures of any editon of D&D with little to no modification.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg)

Never played OD&D but DCC sounds like fun. To balance somehitng out you tweak it, you do not need to burn it to the ground. Direct damage spells in 3rd ed were not broken but in D&DN they resemble 4th ed powers more than classic D&D spells. The balance brigade are destroying the game so erm yeah.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Never played OD&D but DCC sounds like fun. To balance somehitng out you tweak it, you do not need to burn it to the ground. Direct damage spells in 3rd ed were not broken but in D&DN they resemble 4th ed powers more than classic D&D spells. The balance brigade are destroying the game so erm yeah.



Damage spells where weak in 3rd. beacause of the increase of hitpoints.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Which D&DN also has so classic DD spells should be fine. If your game can't handle a 1d6/level fireball capped at 10d6 save for half go back to the drawing board.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I've played every edition of d&d over the years and enjoyed each one. Overall, I enjoyed each version better than the last, with me enjoying 4e the most. 5e so far feels like I had to the back of the line instead of going forward.
It isn't

Not in any sense 

Yep!
...
...
The current packages are free.

LOL Tongue Out I guess that IS a plus...

Well, now that I think about it, all this spare time has given me a chance to look over pathfinder so I guess 5e was good at pushing me towards another game still putting out material. It did that pretty well. Wink
Never played OD&D but DCC sounds like fun. To balance somehitng out you tweak it, you do not need to burn it to the ground. Direct damage spells in 3rd ed were not broken but in D&DN they resemble 4th ed powers more than classic D&D spells. The balance brigade are destroying the game so erm yeah.



Damage spells where weak in 3rd. beacause of the increase of hitpoints.

Direct Damage spells weren't at all weak in 3.5; they were merely fair. A blastery spellcaster is a fairly strong character in 3.5. They were only weak compared to the alternatives.

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.
Next has shown me what I really like in 4E, it has enforced my personal view. For me, that is the only positive thing about it. And I am really sorry for having to say this.
I do not have a group to playtest with, haven't since playtest package 2.
It does not make sense for me to post anything about Next for now anymore. So I guess I won't. Maybe I will pick it up again in 6-9 months. But I really think I am done for now. Take care.
So far I like advantage/disadvantage and  1 hour duration bless/mage armor buffs. I much prefer these kind of buffs to  to having to track transient +1s and +2s that change from turn to turn.

Until this last packet I had like the directions feats were going in, but now it appears that system master has been brought back in all its glory. Feats where one of the things I didn't really like when I started playing D&D again. Feats like iron hide weapon master and improved initiative make me think the developers forget their initial design goals on what feats are to accomplish.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

Which D&DN also has so classic DD spells should be fine. If your game can't handle a 1d6/level fireball capped at 10d6 save for half go back to the drawing board.



10d6 points of damage on average kills a rogue and a wizard without a bonus to hit points from constitution on a failed saving throw. In 2nd edition, that's a 50% chance at level 10.

That's increadibly fun in a game like 2nd edition but these spells have no business being in a game that wants to leave room for any kind of tactical combat. Those kinds of games require at least 3-round combats.

Another option is to double the hit points. If wizards get 2d4 hit points per level, rogues 2d6, etc..., then your Fireball probably can deal 10d6 points of damage at level 10.
Never played OD&D but DCC sounds like fun. To balance somehitng out you tweak it, you do not need to burn it to the ground. Direct damage spells in 3rd ed were not broken but in D&DN they resemble 4th ed powers more than classic D&D spells. The balance brigade are destroying the game so erm yeah.



Damage spells where weak in 3rd. beacause of the increase of hitpoints.

Direct Damage spells weren't at all weak in 3.5; they were merely fair. A blastery spellcaster is a fairly strong character in 3.5. They were only weak compared to the alternatives.




At low levels they where viable, but in later levels they where a trap option.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Which D&DN also has so classic DD spells should be fine. If your game can't handle a 1d6/level fireball capped at 10d6 save for half go back to the drawing board.



I never said I had a problem with that. I loved blasting slags with fireballs in 2nd. In third , Id launch one into a massive group of monsters roll good damage only too see not one drop. That was very disappointing.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Which D&DN also has so classic DD spells should be fine. If your game can't handle a 1d6/level fireball capped at 10d6 save for half go back to the drawing board.



10d6 points of damage on average kills a rogue and a wizard without a bonus to hit points from constitution on a failed saving throw. In 2nd edition, that's a 50% chance at level 10.

That's increadibly fun in a game like 2nd edition but these spells have no business being in a game that wants to leave room for any kind of tactical combat. Those kinds of games require at least 3-round combats.

Another option is to double the hit points. If wizards get 2d4 hit points per level, rogues 2d6, etc..., then your Fireball probably can deal 10d6 points of damage at level 10.



Hit point inflation and things like evasion nerfed them. Saves also need to be higher than what they were in 3rd ed and D&DN now. DD was not brokem in 3.5 and leave metamagic out of D&DN.

I don't think it matters anyway as they are repeating everything that drove out the classic players from 4th ed and they are driving off the 4th ed players as well. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Sign In to post comments