D&D NEXT is the best Iteration of D&D so far

D&D NEXT is the best Iteration of D&D so far, IMHO.

If you agree with me then let the dev team know how you feel with a complementary post.


THANK YOU! /salute.

Michael    

Hm. I see a lot of potential but it's not best so far to me.

I think it could be. But isn't yet.

Still I'm excited to see how it shakes out.
I like it quite a bit, but I'm not ready to hail it as the best version quite yet. Time will tell if I end up feeling that way or not.
At this point I don't see it doing anything better then a edition already out there.

want a high action movie like game 4th is better then the playtest.
want a high magic world 3.X does it better then the playtest.
want a low magic more gritty game ADnD 2nd level 1 to 10 does it better then the playtest.

the playtest tries to do everything and as a result to me seems to do nothing better then a edition already out there.
 
Although I still have high hopes, I currently disagree...I'll still say 4e right at this moment.

Concerns:
1. Bounded Accuracy (Heroes don't feel heroic)
2. Advantage/Disadvantage (see it as very cumbersome in larger combats)
3. Stat bumps as a Feat Alternative that would make Classes bump at different rates
4. Monster numbers are still way off
5. Things that should be optional modules (Apprentice/Legacy Tiers)
6. General disinterest in using terms and formats from 4e (or any older edition)
7. Good Dials need to be there for Healing, Starting Hps, etc... for everything


I still have high hopes, as I said, and I want to believe in the edition, however, it will take major changes to make it work. 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
I enjoy DMing it and I really enjoyed the one game I played in. I don't want to go back to older editions, but I can't say it is best yet. I'm glad to be part of the playtest and I look forward to progress and the final product.

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

 

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

 

 

Well, since others are discussing their disagreement - I will too!

I'm not even sure how you can tell what D&D Next is at the moment.  From all of the comments I've seen and read, I feel like we have no idea what D&D Next looks like, or will look like.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
The only thing that will answer this is how well D&DN sells when it comes out.  To be the best, it will have to sell the best, and in adjusted dollars compared to when all past editions were released.
The only thing that will answer this is how well D&DN sells when it comes out.  To be the best, it will have to sell the best, and in adjusted dollars compared to when all past editions were released.



And also after initial release, the initial release books usualy sell better then books later on.
becouse many people will buy the PHB DMG and on what they see there decide if it is intresting enough to them to buy later books.
 
The playtest runs smoothly and I like the direction it is going.
I enjoy DMing it and I really enjoyed the one game I played in. I don't want to go back to older editions, but I can't say it is best yet. I'm glad to be part of the playtest and I look forward to progress and the final product.



I agree with you on that
It's surly the best iteration of D&D in development i've ever seen!  (i never seen any other Wink)

Seriously though, I enjoy playing and DMing D&D Next and think it has great potential to become one of my favorite iteration but its far from finished to be measured against complete editions yet.

I look forward to progress and the final product as well. 
I would rather play any version of dnd over 5e at this point.
 
Currently D&D Next is looking to me like the worst version of D&D ever made.  All of the other editions at least have a clear vision of what they want to be, and you can see that in the finished product.  D&D Next has numerous mechanics that go against the simplicity, modularity, and core essence aspects of its own design goals.
13th Age is a better "D&D Next" than DDN is.

At the moment all I see in DDN is a mediocre retro-clone with vague promises of "modularity" at some point in the future.

If that changes, maybe I'll be interested, but until then, I'll stick with houseruled 4e or 13th Age. Or any of other various RPGs.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."


At this moment D&DN to me feels more like an attempt to fit 4ed gameplay flavor into 3ed style of rules.

Maybe they feel this will catch the interest of both audiences? That by simply throwing one thing into the other (and calling it "middle-ground") it will win back the players who have migrated to Pathfinder, 13th Age and such.

Well it won't. It's like adding bases and bats to a basketball game and thinking it will win both baseball and basketball fans. 

And for the old-schoolers... honestly there's nothing of 1ed and 2ed AD&D in Next. Not the flavor. Not the style of rules. Not the broad-and-maleable system which focus primarily on supporting narrative and character concept (classes in Next, for example, are very much mechanics-driven only).

Frankly it seems WotC doesn't care much for this era since it was before their time running D&D. Or maybe they just don't quite know how to make this kind of game that was AD&D. 
I agree to a point.  

(speculation based L&L articles)

Basic - I would play basic with anyone, anytime.
Standard - No.  I have no interest in 3X all over again. (However, that may change with the next playtest packet)
Advanced -  I would DM this game forever.

 

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

It's looking good so far, liking what I'm seeing. Time will tell.
Yeah, it's looking good. If they hit their goals I think it'll be great. But trying to please everybody ends up pleasing nobody. So, I hope they don't stumble down that path.

Bounded Accuracy is great though. Number inflation is just annoying.
I honestly can't even see a potential for that in the current playtest.  It might potentially aproach the quality, balance, and playability of 3.5, maybe.  I suspect it'd be a stretch.  

That's really the critical question, to me:   If Next is at least as good as 3.5, I'll consider it, even if it's not as good as 4e (and, really, it's not even trying to be as good as 4e).  If it's not, I might actually even take 3.5 back up, since it has ongoing support.  

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I like the direction it is taking, but it is clearly an arduous task they are undertaking. I'll reserve final judgment on the final product when it is eventually released. 
@Rastapopulos,

I don't know. I feel exactly the opposite. It feels a lot like 2E to me and I wish there were lots more 4E.

Maybe they're right in the middle?
@Rastapopulos, I don't know. I feel exactly the opposite. It feels a lot like 2E to me and I wish there were lots more 4E. Maybe they're right in the middle?



Honestly, I wonder about this -- when people say that it captures the feeling of all the editions of D&D but the one they like, that kinda scares me.  It's like the "It's good, if you're into that kind of thing" praise that you see about certain cars that you'd never drive.

Right now, I'm telling myself it's playtest, and that Mearls is joking in most of his tweets.    We'll see if my denial can be sustained.
In my feedback I've actually compared Next to a Honda Accord.

It's... fine. But I wouldn't buy one.

D&D NEXT is the best Iteration of D&D so far, IMHO.

If you agree with me then let the dev team know how you feel with a complementary post.


THANK YOU! /salute.

Michael    




I haven't played in 18-20 years (growing up on Red box basic to companion sets and AD&D 2nd edition), I'm really enjoying the peril characters are in from lower level goblins/orcs etc with +hit bonuses, your on edge (and that's how it should be), I like the combat options PCs have to spice things up which aren't overdone. Mind you I've only played Fighter/Paladin/Cleric as those archtypes suit my playstyle better. Some are whinging about mage superiority, but meh.

Really enjoying the playtest so far anyway     

I think the most troubling thing about D&D:Next is that I feel very "meh" about it. I can't jump up and say "Wow! THis game so far has been so great at providing the sort of D&D that I truly enjoy!" but neither can I say "Wow! This game is really boring, bad, or has crap-mechanics that drives me away at warp 9.7." 

It's all wrapped up in "meh".

At this moment D&DN to me feels more like an attempt to fit 4ed gameplay flavor into 3ed style of rules.

Maybe they feel this will catch the interest of both audiences? That by simply throwing one thing into the other (and calling it "middle-ground") it will win back the players who have migrated to Pathfinder, 13th Age and such.

Well it won't. It's like adding bases and bats to a basketball game and thinking it will win both baseball and basketball fans. 

And for the old-schoolers... honestly there's nothing of 1ed and 2ed AD&D in Next. Not the flavor. Not the style of rules. Not the broad-and-maleable system which focus primarily on supporting narrative and character concept (classes in Next, for example, are very much mechanics-driven only).

Frankly it seems WotC doesn't care much for this era since it was before their time running D&D. Or maybe they just don't quite know how to make this kind of game that was AD&D. 



You see these types of whigning posts all over the net, this OD&D renaissance/mystique/ nostalgia. Bottom line is, OD&D/2nd Edition is in the past and if you really think that, that edition alone had the mystique/nostalgia to make the game 120% interesting alone, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

It's like Vanilla WoW players wanting/desperately holding on to the game still, hoping it will become a semblance of it's original self and wanting that "excited" feeling again from the game.
 You will never find it sadly, it was that fleeting moment, where the game was new, exciting and the baseline human reactions associated. It's partly the game itself, but the majority is the emotions inside.

So it's the individual and his associated gameplay group that make a game, their reactions/emotions coupled with a fresh game template granted. But trying to harp back on OD&D - AD&D 2e, and trying to find the magic/feelings etc is a waste of time, it just will not happen, because you have been there before, and it's all been done.

People just need to enjoy the game with their companion players, or you don't simple.

I haven't played for 18+ years, I picked this D&DN edition playtest up, and i'm personally enjoying the "middle ground" as it's described by some people, there is some spice in class abilities/skills/feats, but not too much to make it a nightmare to follow (which is some of the complaint around 4e), AC system is great put's you on edge and is more realistic compared to stacking rings of protection to gain a -6 AC that not even high HD creatures can touch, and it's not so simple like AD&D 2e to be totally boring after playing that previously, it just does not have enough substance in it combat wise. 
There is no reason why an oldschool D&D player couldn't utilize D&DN and have a nice descriptive gameworld/campaign/dungeon and still not really enjoy the mechanics.  
Just a whole lot of whinging for nothing imao, just enjoy the game or go play something else imao, or go play the OD&D/2e and be bored stiff, with clunky mechanics that sometimes don't make a hell of a lot of common sense in application.          

I think the most troubling thing about D&D:Next is that I feel very "meh" about it. I can't jump up and say "Wow! THis game so far has been so great at providing the sort of D&D that I truly enjoy!" but neither can I say "Wow! This game is really boring, bad, or has crap-mechanics that drives me away at warp 9.7." 

It's all wrapped up in "meh".



Well then it seems you need a break from it all mate, because what more can you do with a tabletop game?

MMORPG online are like that for me, it's just rehashing and flogging the same dead horse, that's why i'm back to be more creative with tabletop RPG again after a long layoff.   

5e doesn't appeal to me on any level, in fact it's making 3.0 and the pre-3 game look better by comparison.

The game as it stands just feels poorly thought out, like they never really sat down and decided ahead of time what they wanted the game to do, and then just threw stuff together. 
5e doesn't appeal to me on any level, in fact it's making 3.0 and the pre-3 game look better by comparison.

The game as it stands just feels poorly thought out, like they never really sat down and decided ahead of time what they wanted the game to do, and then just threw stuff together. 



By the sounds of it, and listening to the panel briefly on youtube from a year or teo ago, they are trying to have a gentle medium for card gaming kiddies coming up, and the oldschoolers, they can make it work imao. 

The game as it stands just feels poorly thought out, like they never really sat down and decided ahead of time what they wanted the game to do, and then just threw stuff together. 

In many ways, to me it feels like they had a list of mechanics from prior editions and have been looking for ways to add them to Next in order to "appease" fans of certain editions -- rather than finding a gap in the design that warrants a mechanic being added to the game.
“If the computer or the game designer is having more fun than the player, you have made a terrible mistake.” -Sid Meier
DDNext is the best version of D&D that is not yet been published. While it's not something I'm enamoured with, it is still heads above so many other attempts at fantasy RPGs.

MeCorva: DDNext does seem to be the Roarsch test of games. Whatever you see in it is a reflection of what you are thinking. From a psychological level, it is interesting that so many people say "Every edition except my favourite", at least as an analysis upon the analyzer.  

"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

5e doesn't appeal to me on any level, in fact it's making 3.0 and the pre-3 game look better by comparison.

The game as it stands just feels poorly thought out, like they never really sat down and decided ahead of time what they wanted the game to do, and then just threw stuff together. 



I feel the same.  It feels like they started with two rough ideas...

"How do we ease entrance for new players?"
"Let's Unite the fanbase!"

And put little thought into either idea from there,  just started implementing.  Right now,  I don't think they have viable design.  I would agree with my 4th edition frenemies,  as a 1st-3rd edition fan,  I don't know if I would buy this either.  For everything I see that I think "Yeah,  that's cool",  there's two things that have me thinking "Um...just...no".
I will likely buy the game if I these things are true...

1.  A non-martial magic only healing system exists as an option
2.  The healing system also eschews additional constructs like HD and surges and just uses hit points.
3.  Classes are not symmetrical (it's looking good on that front for sure)
4.  Dissociative Mechanics are removable easily.

If I can't though achieve 1 through 4, my chances are pretty slim.  This will be the first edition of D&D that I have not bought if that happens.   

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

With the monster math no longer in utter tatters, I feel like with the last packet it's finally possible to actually evaluate Next as a game, and I think it's "fine". It feels like a reasonable member of a big family of d20 derivatives I've played with. "Fine" is actually a pretty good place for a system with a lot of development left to go to be. As someone who isn't bizarrely turned off by the presence of additional options that I don't like, it'd be hard for them to take the game to a place where I don't consider it at least "fine", and easy for them to take it to a place where I consider it a lot better than "fine". I seriously doubt that Next will be my absolute dream game (which, given my tastes, is probably for the best for the world at large), but it's come far enough that I fully expect it to at least reach "pretty cool" status.
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.
5e doesn't appeal to me on any level, in fact it's making 3.0 and the pre-3 game look better by comparison.

The game as it stands just feels poorly thought out, like they never really sat down and decided ahead of time what they wanted the game to do, and then just threw stuff together. 



This statement pretty much somes my views on D&D next. The only interesting thing about it I have seen is Advantage/Disadvantage and I really don't care for it. I will keep filling out the questionaires and try to change, but I really don't see it becoming something I will want to play or especially DM.

3 of my gaming group no longer want to test play it with another indfferent and a 5th found it somewhat blah.


Leroy Jethro Gibbs NCIS "A slap to the face is humiliating. A slap to the back of the head is a wake up call."

 

Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition

I agree with the OP. Even in its current state its a better RPG than any version of D&D that came before. It's a simple game built on a mostly unified framework. I undestand what the numbers mean and I can build a wide variety of characters with very little effort.
Next is a great game in that it will carry carry on the legacy of D&D better than 4e ever could.    4e is my personal favorite but it's very different from the games that came before.

I believe 3e 'got away' from WotC, thanks to the OGL and games like Pathfinder (nothing wrong with that game-- other than it belongs to Paizo, not WotC).  I believe WotC created 4e as a way to make D&D their baby again, a game unique from anything seen under Gygax and TSR for instance.

For whatever reason, that approach didn't take.  Now, with the 40th anniversary of D&D just around the corner, my believe is that they want to 'recapture' the legacy of the game from the likes of Pathfinder.  4e is too different, it won't do (by design, it's different); Next is more like it, a good ol' fashioned game of D&D.  To be clear, nothing wrong with either approch.  They've been back-n-forth over the last few years though, from one extreme to the other, 'classic' D&D vs. 're-imagined' D&D (4e).

= = =

D&D nostalgia isn't as strong a selling point for me as I thouht it might be.  Still, I have no doubt that I'll pick up Next.  Should be easy to find players for and I also enjoy following the lore.  I like D&D, when all is said and done.  DDN won't be 4e but I've decided I don't really want it to be.  My 4e books aren't going away any time soon ;).

The real drawback is that Next feels same ol', same ol' to me.  Don't get me wrong, I do like D&D but I (still) have access to all those old games.  Next has the same appeal for me as a spork; kinda cool 'til I realize I actually have a fork and spoon.  
 
'Kay, nuff rambling.  Preface everything with 'in my opinion' just to be safe ;).
/\ Art
Trill I gotta disagree, from my perspective next is like a sketchy version of 3.0, I will even grant that so far it actually handles multi-attacking better than 3e. However that not-insignificant advantage is completely blown out of the water and then some for a simple reason, the game is so blatantly caster-centric that I it makes 3e look balanced.
I just... I mean... I... How are people deciding all of this, when we don't even know what massive portions of the game (specialties, feats, backgrounds, skills, half of the core classes) even look like right now?

"My most/least favorite D&D is the one that's only half there, and the other half is mystery"?
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I go by the packet, the packet is supposed to be a playable game at this point, and it is in the way that all the rules are there. The problem is that the rules suck, and there are major wholes in the core mechancis of the game, these are not things that can be fixed by more backgrounds, feats, skills, or classes in the current mode, but require a basic restructuring of how those things operate.
Sign In to post comments