My over all view so far of dnd next.

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
I'll just get this out of the way first since most people don't read past the first sentance.


This is a glorified 3.5 varient at best. 

There are some differences yes, but i feel like i'm looking and playing and dming a early version of 3.5 thats slightly different and incomplete.

Nothing feels good about what i've Dm'ed for my players so far, the skills are terrible, the combat is a bit lack luster, and nothing they are changing i feel is a step in the right direction.

me and my group of 5, feel this is a step backwards in the universe of dnd. theres very little here that can't be satisfied in playing 3.5. the fighters improved from 3.5, the wizard can now cast cantrips as much as he wants, and the rogue has to work twice as hard it seems to get his stuff done. this can all be solved by making these slight changes to the core 3.5 rules.

4E was very well done, my group all made the conversion when it launched. There are lots of things that can be improved, but overall the edition felt more in a direction the company should be going.

4E was easy to pick up and understand beyond character creation, to easy perhaps by some. but the heroic feel you get from the early level power slowly fades as you progress into the heroic teir if done correctly. the encounters were easy to balance as monsters had roles and levels. they were easier to make interesting. Every class was very unique in its own way.

Now i come and look at this and it just looks so bland and tastless, even my gaming table was like wtf am i looking at. If i wanted 3.5 rules, i'd pull out my 3.5 books and we would play 3.5, and possible add in some of these variants. unless they make some HEAVY, and i mean HEAVY changes to this version, then i don't see my self or my group converting from 4E. This is just to much a step in the wrong direction. With every edition that has come out (i got my start in 2e) there has been innovation, pioneering, heavy changes. it made it feel new fresh and over all improved game play. 

This feel like they are trying to polish the turd that was 3.5, polish a turd it's still a turd. They might as well scrap this project and just expand on the material for 3.5. Or find a way to take this in the right direction it needs to go. Now don't get me wrong, i loved 3.5 to death when i played it, and some part of me is willing to play 3.5. but 4E is just so much more exciting, needs work, but it needs perfection.

If they spent more time going off of 4E and making a better new and improved version of 4E instead of dragging up old concepts, this would be an awsome exciting thing to follow. this is the 3rd or 4th version of this that i've seen and i've not been impressed one step of the way, i wouldn't even play test the first version i saw because i was apalled at how terrible it was.

I doubt my voice will be herd, theres to many 3.5 fan boys who hate 4E to much. But i play both, i enjoy both, i just happen to enjoy 4E over 3.5, sorry. 

4E brought so much to the table, it expanded each class into somthing unique, no longer did you have a fighter who just swung his sword and took the hits. You have a fighter who is using reaping strike, you have a fighter who is cracking the shell. You have a ranger who is splitting the tree. Ya this may feel a bit like world of warcraft to some people, but remeber Blizzard creators of world of warcraft played and loved dnd, so their concepts are going to seem similar. There is nothing world of warcraft about 4E if it is played properly and with a good story weaver. 

3.5 had the best skill system i've enjoyed, 4e not so much the skills were over simplified. The encounters dailys and at wills were a good concept, i would like to see these changed for the martial classes though (more flexiblity as to why these 3[w] skills represented 3 weapon swings)

4e combat was over simplified outside of useing skills and at will to do the bulk of damage. like the grappling rules, tripping, bull rushing, didn't feel all quite there. nor did any special action in combat.

In 4E the saving throws concept was dumb. i don't like the saving throw system in 4E at all, i would rather see modifcations to that. 3.5's didn't feel any better except they served a similar but different function. (one to prevent spells, one to get rid of effects of spells)

There is so much that could have been innovated from blending 3.5 and 4E that i feel they missed the nail on the head in this edition. it feels way to much like 3.5 and not enough of an advanced version of 4E,

I feel if they took 3.5 skills, 4E classes, 3.5 combat, and 4E character building and races, and mooshed them together they'd have a pretty solid dnd next edition, and i mean 3.5 combat out side of the stock of attacks like i mentioned above. the at will encounter and daily idea is good. maybe instead of swapping lower level dailies and encounters however you could do somthing more with these.

Give the wizard back the useless spells everyone hated the wizard for having, mainly because they didn't have any combat influence. die hard wizards know what i mean.

My over all assesment of this project and paly test, NEEDS TRUCK LOADS OF WORK!!

As always i enjoy debating anything i say, so i welcome and look forward to the discussion on this thread.
There are some differences yes, but i feel like i'm looking and playing and dming a early version of 3.5 thats slightly different and incomplete.



It is incomplete. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be playtesting, we'd be buying books at retail.
what i mean is it feels like 3.5, but it feels like they just are play testing the differences instead of the entire 3.5.

*edit Like they are play testing an extension of 3.5 and threw some rules in there for simplicity. this version could honestly be implemented into a 3.5 campange and it would all just be called, "variant rules" 
I feel that every playtest packet since the first has been a step in the wrong direction; the addition of unnecessary (& unwanted) restrictions and impositions; reverting to the worst design aspects of previous editions, ignoring anything that came post-2008, and the near-complete abandonment of the vision of D&DN as originally pitched (a flexible, modular system).

To the point, IF I wanted to play 3E, I'd PLAY 3E/3.5/Pathfinder; and IF I wanted to play something 2E or older, I'd PLAY 2E. In it's current state, Next is a hybrid monstrosity of 30+ years of bad game design.

TL;DNR - Sorry D&D, I'm not interested in your "Greatest Hits" album. Call me when you release some new material.
"Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!"
Seriously now what did you find in 4E ? Except from the Monster Manual and it's new concepts of minions etc, which obviously where awesome. (MM 4E is one of the best books I've read, i admit).  Did you like the heroic names of the abilites of each class, that gave a feeling of playing WoW in d&d ?

And in 3,5E what did you face after 12th lvl? Balors and Demogorgons? Every Orc in the campaing had to be Brb 6 and every skeleton a death knight?  Why did ever Goblins and Orcs where tough or a threat for cities, like in tha novels? (They where many? :P) Every squire of Ftr1 could have double their hp and Cleave. Had you ever tried the Evil setting? Every minor lord had to befriend 1-2 wizards NPCs of lvl 8+, in order to give your PCs the feeling they can't cleave their way out the city's guards, with the lord's head in a pike and his gold on mules. Jesus.
 3,5E and it's   Xattacks/round? Or the Power Attack and it's x2 damage for 2-h. Weapons had no difference (common) and with Power Attack you could also walk around with a stick and kill dragons. Actually a half-orc PC did that...and continued to do that even if eventually i had him to take weapon exotic prof (tree trunk) feat...to avoid -4 to hit. 1st lvl Mages...after so many years of training.... could cast....what...ice finger for 1d3 cold dmg? 

I think the playtest has many many nice concepts. And we all can add to them. The feeling that you get that it's a scaled down 3,5 is...well true. But that's not something entirely bad. 3E was nice in it's concept at some points, 2nd was even more (the core of the whole concept). It's the details that ruined completely the 3,5 after a lvl...those details are the goal of fixing.  Maybe adding concepts from 2nd also.
Making something entirely new may or may not happen in the end. Sometimes even little details can give something new, even if it does not look like that. The result isn't the thing that matters? Not how it looks...(apparently if in the end the changes aren't at least 50% of the 3,5 rules, yes then it is not a new edition i agree, but i would at least be something better)
community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...

next=3.6
Its got some cool ideas such as bounded accuracy...and....and well nothing else that really sets it apart from 3.5/3.7
So I introduced NEXT as a module in to 3.5 and it seems to work disconcertingly too well. I wish it didn't as I want a next that is cool and new and innovative.
Agreed i would like to see that too perhaps. But there is also the other side in me that holds onto Fighter,Paladin,Thief,Mage. And BaB. And Critical. If you get my point.  And i am not sure what i'll introduce one day to my children perhaps....(for sure 1-2 great epics BG, Icewind etc). I mean WoTC has left a legacy, in one or the other way. And...it does not seem to be right to give it away for something else...IF you aren't sure what's that! Or how good is it...

Many things maybe seem really..."useless" perhaps, or are additions only to balance out other "useless" things. But a consistent ruleset has relations. One needs to find these and see if these fit, to the flavor he wants, to accomplish. I don't know why wizards has not yet got out a Poll like (at least i didn't notice)...to have a view of it's community.

"What D&D next flavor whould you like most?"

a. 2nd old school
b. 3.5 high fantasy
c. 4E tabletop board game
d. Sword & Sorcery
e. ...else

But let's keep also this in mind, that even if the new ruleset has a flavor A, shouldn't be there for the DMs a space in that ruleset that could take on house rules and be modular...we can't all have in the end the same needs, settings, campaigns.
Really?  Differences off the top of my head:

Bounded accuracy
Spell DC not being level based (both of these improve the value of the base stat)
The entire scope of the fighter class (very 4e)
lower numbers across the board (This makes the AC system more in line with ThacO in terms of balance - AD&D)
better monster scaling (due to numbers in general being lower and less level scaling monsters remain a threat longer)
less attacks a round (by reducing the number of attacks you reduce the number of times enhacement bonuses and str mods get added)
deadly strike (due to less attacks a round, even with this you still end up with much less damage overall)
cantrips being at will (very 4e)
druid is not as op due to wildshape restrictions
advantage/disadvantage system  (great system - simple and intuitive)
the skill system using dice, no skill points, and less skills (very similar to AD&D's non weapon profs.)
ranger looks like it will be a ranger, not a twf or archery specialist
healing as a swift action
racial subsets (3.5)
class subsets (more remniscient of the kits in AD&D)
background packages
Arcane recovery (very 4e)
interchangeablespell slots
Ritual casting (4e)
Short rests and hit dice
Change to healing skill
Pace of combat is significantly improved
Streamlined combat rules (they need to improve disarm, trip, etc to make them worth getting - charge should not be a feat)
Magic items feel much more like AD&D

To me I love the direction of Next - it feels like it takes some of the strengths of each system and combines them.  Class balance needs to be worked on, and more material forthcoming of course.  As of now I have every intent of purchasing 5e when it is published.

Edit:
Its like choosing between two prospective students for a graduate program.  They have the same undergrad, same GPA,  but one of them volunteers a few hours each week, has professional letters of recommendation from leaders in the field, work experience or an internship, etc.  All those little things add up and eventually you are on a different level entirely.  I feel like this is the direction Next is going, sure there aren't a whole ton of sweeping changes, but there are enough changes and amalgamizations that the end product is not a new 3.5 at all, but something very different. 
To read about my playtest sessions click here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29995793/?sdb=1&pg=last#533677003


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Folks, you need to face the the fact that while 4th is a decent game, a game that I found to be fun, it is hardly an RPG, it is a table top video game; perhaps its best contribution to to gaming were the board games Wrath of ..., Ravenloft...., and the Drizzt one.

4th does not feel like D&D.  D&DNext does - and while it still needs some adjustments it is on the right track.     

Happy gamin' Rogue Tom

I doubt my voice will be herd, theres to many 3.5 fan boys who hate 4E to much.



Ah, yes, the "anybody who takes the other p.o.v. is a Fan Boy" argument.

If you find that ineffective, you might try Obama's latest rhetorical technique: calling all his policies "common sense", which is shorthand for, "I can't really prove it will work, but it suggests that my opponents are idiots."

"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
Folks, you need to face the the fact that while 4th is a decent game, a game that I found to be fun, it is hardly an RPG, it is a table top video game; perhaps its best contribution to to gaming were the board games Wrath of ..., Ravenloft...., and the Drizzt one.

4th does not feel like D&D.  D&DNext does - and while it still needs some adjustments it is on the right track.



I haven't actually played much since 1st edition AD&D, but over the past 30 years I've often found myself sitting in the bookstore reading the latest rule books.

So although I never played 4e, I have to agree with the above.  It doesn't "feel" like D&D...it was just endless variants of combat abilities for an ever increasing array of races and classes.

Just the fact that the words "fluff" and "crunch" have become part of the lexicon suggests a divide, and neither side is going to "win" that argument; it's pure opinion.

I hope Next doesn't turn into an evolution of 4e; I hope the two versions coexist, serving very different audiences.  I'd much rather see version 1 updated with some of the best lessons from 2, 3, 3.5, and 4.  That is, a relatively simple game rules-wise that offers lots of flexibility and support for storytelling, interaction, and exploration.
"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
Try 4e, get over the "oh no pc games are evil so anything that on paper looks like it must be evil and thus doesnt feel right!". 4E was quite a solid system for playing paper RPG, just as solid as any of the other editions whom I also loved to play in. It got a bit samey over time, but tbh so did the other editions.

@Garimeth take a look at the link, all the changes in an easy to apply 2 A4 sheet. Half of what you mention IS bounded accurcy by the way...bounded accuracy isnt jus the AC. Deadly strike is called vital strike and is copy pasted from 3.7. Arcane recovery would be 4e if it was an encounter power now its just one more spell per day restricted to use. As to pace of combat being improved upon is a personal matter, use the word accelerated please (I hate 1/2 round combats, why bother). rest should be covered in my handy link.
And my point with that link was: Next CAN be transfered to 3.5 with next to no hassle. You cant transfer next to ANY other edition like that. Therefore next doesnt warrent the 5e badge, its not a system in its own right its a 3.x upgrade its 3.6. 
IF that is a good thing or not is personal, i quite liked 3.5 but so much that I want to play yet another slightly upgraded version? I dont know...probably...for a while.
Try 4e, get over the "oh no pc games are evil so anything that on paper looks like it must be evil and thus doesnt feel right!". 4E was quite a solid system for playing paper RPG, just as solid as any of the other editions whom I also loved to play in. It got a bit samey over time, but tbh so did the other editions.

@Garimeth take a look at the link, all the changes in an easy to apply 2 A4 sheet. Half of what you mention IS bounded accurcy by the way...bounded accuracy isnt jus the AC. Deadly strike is called vital strike and is copy pasted from 3.7. Arcane recovery would be 4e if it was an encounter power now its just one more spell per day restricted to use. As to pace of combat being improved upon is a personal matter, use the word accelerated please (I hate 1/2 round combats, why bother). rest should be covered in my handy link.
And my point with that link was: Next CAN be transfered to 3.5 with next to no hassle. You cant transfer next to ANY other edition like that. Therefore next doesnt warrent the 5e badge, its not a system in its own right its a 3.x upgrade its 3.6. 
IF that is a good thing or not is personal, i quite liked 3.5 but so much that I want to play yet another slightly upgraded version? I dont know...probably...for a while.



I read your link, but I disagree with your conclusion.  Can it be converted more easily to 3.5?  Sure, because it uses the DC d20 system, but as you can see on my list it draws heavily from other systems as well.  Also, reading your other thread it makes it sound like your main experience with AD&D is playing a computer game, not tabletop.  BG is an amazing game, but it plays very different tha table top, the non weapon proficiency system is a huge part.  I also don't feel lke your thread responds to most of what I said.  The changes are significant and far reaching.  I liked 3.5 also, I also liked AD&D, and there were some things that I liked about 4e.  I find Next takes most of the good things from each system.  The grand total of all those little things changes adds up to a different system in its own right.  You're premise is that it doesn't take stuff from other editions, but even in your own write-up you reference stuff from 4e, and to be honest if your only experience with AD&D is from BG, then you don't "really" know AD&D.  A quick look at my list will show that they pull elements from more editions of the game than just 3.5, even a look at your list shows that.  Can all these elements be converted to 3.5? Sure, but that doesn't make it 3.6.  I think the  reason that you only list stuff from 3.5 and 4e on your list is because those are the editions of D&D you have played.

 I, and most of my players, think it "feels" more like AD&D, while "playing" like 3.5e.  We are excited, and greatly enjoy it. 

Regarding combat, I will actually agree that accelerated is a better term.  I think that is an improvement 4/5 times, but I think there need to be rules for champion mobs that are the sole monster in the encounter.  One other change I would like to see is more of an AD&D system of multi-classing to prevent "splashing".

Just my 2 cp.
To read about my playtest sessions click here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29995793/?sdb=1&pg=last#533677003


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

I did play ADND back in the old days, BG just reminded me of it, but I havnt touched an ADND book since 3e came out so there is 100% a lot of things ive forgotten or misremember Ive never really played 1st.
 
 I think the core of the system, or as you say what it plays like, defines the edition number (my own view) hence the 3e tag. I think my last comment in the other topic wad tjat im glad other people can see the fundamental changes I seem oblivious to