|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 11:38PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2010
|
I wish there was a way to make it mandatory that every playtester agree to this... /sigh.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 11:39PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
I wish there was a way to make it mandatory that every playtester agree to this... /sigh.
Seconded.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 12:57PM
#33
|
|
|
Read the Whole Thing
This may seem like a no-brainer, but every single person participating in the playtest should read every section of it. Whether you like it, whether you don't, doesn't matter - read the whole thing. Many aspects undoubtedly will seem strange and bizarre at first glance, but will start to make sense once they're put into larger context.
I'd like to question this suggestion. I might give DMing a go, but for at least the first two play throughs my group will be doing I'll definitely be wearing a Player hat.
Should I really be reading the Beastiary and Adventure before we play?
Otherwise, awesome guide.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 2:34PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
In this case no. Just the How to play should suffice until you actually DM.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 6:32PM
#35
|
|
|
I have too say this, since the general reaction to the playtest seems possitive, I fell someone who had a negative reaction to it is out numbered, out gunned, so I've been having a hard time. I've been formulating a large, very large list of hang-ups and rules oddities that I've noticed do far, but it's been a long process.
I sincerly hope when I post it it will be taken seriously and listened to, because right now it dosn't.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 9:55AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2012
|
I actually read a lot of reactions before I got the packet, so I was expecting to see some terrible document. I see a lot of little issues, but the base of the packet seems really sound. I can VERY easily see how I'd sit down and have a fun time with this edition. I hope they improve it a lot before it is released, but my sky is thoroughly not falling.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 11:57AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Oct 18, 2008
|
So far I have found one thing that I like in DnDNext. Failed Death saves do 1d6 damage and you die at negative CON Score +5.
So far it reads like AD&D 3rd Edition.
Yes THAC0 is gone, AC is positives numbers, Skills are gone, Logical Actions are gone.
Powers are gone except for Spells (Clerics & Wizards).
3rd's BAB seems to be back, Weapon Proficiency Bonus are gone.
Stats are standardized (3rd/4th) and all provide the same bonus.
Skills are simply Ability Checks; which isn't bad per se, but so far there is nothing to indicate really training or talent/knack for a skill.
Movement is back in feet increments; so things move at 2.5 feet. So mapping will be interesting again. Healing is useless again, so everyone will die a lot, which isn't bad, but hey the days of getting 1 HP back are here again.
CON is the primary stat for everyone, well if you want to actually have a chance to NOT die. *sigh* May the whiny power gamers rejoice now everyone is screwed. Positives:
Weapon damage still standardized and are just 1 die type (except Bastard sword).
AC is standardized and Positive numbers; Expanded Light Armor.
at Nat 1 always a miss; Nat 20 ALWAYS a crit.
Crit still does maximum damage for the attack and no stupid confirm roll for a crit.
HP increase per Level is a standard set number; At least you can't get a 1 HP increase because you die roll sucked. Negatives:
Healing is a Die Roll w/o bonus; so yep you can drink that expensive potion of healing and get 1 hp back. Same for healing Spells; Go 1 HP.
Healing Spells are mostly useless; better to focus on buffs that prevent damage.
Combat is two things: Move and An Action (Usually an attack or a second move). There is no Charge, No Bull Rush per se or the rules are murky.
Actions will most like be expanded to include confusing variants of Swift and Full Round (vs Minor, Move & Standard and the logical variations there of).
Movement is back in the Feet increment so mapping will be difficult because somethings have odd movements (i.e. 2.5 feet).
So squares will need to be re-defined for maps/tiles, etc. or we go warhammer and start using tape measures. Either way, maps will probably need to become much larger to deal with the smaller movement ranges. Things that are "Shrugs":
People will need to use their imagination more to make their characters unique from the others of the same class.
This is not a bad or good thing, just it has been a problem for players since 3rd edition came out; 4th used it more to a degree but most people didn't understand how to use their imagination.
Healing Surges are back as Hit Dice, but still a random roll; so go 1s!
Themes and backgrounds; Interesting, but need to see more about them. Things I will miss:
Different types of attack options: in 4th they were you At Will, Encounter or Daily Powers.
Healing actually being useful; sorry but the chance of getting 1hp back just pisses me off.
Opportunity Actions; There are no OAs / AoO; you have to give up your action to get any.
Action Points (4th Ed Version) Things I want to see:
I would like to see something closer to the Essentials Idea of a few powers that you can get that increase or work with your standard attack. So it is not a matter of managing encounters or dailies, it is just a small set of enhancements around your class. They were called stances frequently for the martial characters. (This would be eliminate my missing of the Powers, BTW, depending on the implementation.
Minor Actions; Free Actions or more specifically the logical (in most cases) definition of the some actions so that it is easier to make sense of what is going on for things that should not prevent you from attacking or moving, but take up more time than nothing.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 12:26PM
#38
|
|
|
So it's the big day. Hooo-boy, isn't this exciting! Shortly we will get all of our grubby little mitts on all the juicy goodness that is in the public playtest. Whee! It's an exciting time, but it is also a risky time - this is the first opportunity for many people here to see the material, and it's all too likely that things will be running a bit hot for the near future. I for one think that the fundamental purpose of this forum is to make Next the best game it can be, and to that end there are some things I hope people do and some things I hope we can agree to try to avoid.
Read the Whole Thing
This may seem like a no-brainer, but every single person participating in the playtest should read every section of it. Whether you like it, whether you don't, doesn't matter - read the whole thing. Many aspects undoubtedly will seem strange and bizarre at first glance, but will start to make sense once they're put into larger context.
Don't Panic
Welcome advice for any hitchhiker, but this really is the big one. There will undoubtedly be feature X that is on your list of "oh god not that worthless drivel." But if you let that feature get in the way of looking objectively at the rest of the things, or the system as a whole, then the likelihood that your contributions will form constructive feedback will drop drastically. At worst, you might write Next off completely and stop participating in the playtest. We need everyone's perspective on this, and the worst thing possible is to hold back on a perspective based on an initial red flag.
Think Beyond Your Game
The easiest sort of feedback to give is "This is how I did it before, this is how I want to do it now, this is how the playtest material does/doesn't let me do it the way I want." This is valuable. It's the on-the-ground, real-table sort of feedback that WotC is definitely wanting. But it's not the only feedback they're going to want, and it's not even necessarily the most helpful. Another type of feedback steps back from your immediate situation and considers how whatever thing you're taking a closer look at impacts the system as a whole, and how that might affect the games of people who might not play the exact same way you do. Given Next's focus on inclusion and there not being a "wrong" way to play, this is really important. Even if you really like a particular feature, being able to say "Well, I really like this, but I can see how other people may have a problem with it, here's how you could tweak it so that it still meets my needs but doesn't shut out others" is the sort of thing that will really help WotC meet that goal.
Play The Game
We're about to get the packet materials, and if there's one thing I've learned about game forums (tabletop, video, and otherwise) it's the tendency to take information that's posted, whether it be a playtest packet or datamined patch notes, and make sweeping claims and judgments on the basis of a read-through of the text but without actually trying it out. To be sure, the read-through reaction has merit, but it's also the most likely thing to turn into flamewars on the forums. Posting a strong statement, either positive or negative, based on the text alone leaves the opening for someone to say "Well, we actually tried that out and it's not what it seems because of XYZ." And if people get their backs up when that happens, then we have a major argument, bad feelings, ORCs, etc.
Recognize that this is a work in progress
The way things are now are not the way things will be. Period. Even if something in the playtest material is a complete and total dealbreaker or a complete and total must-have, don't take that as a given for future rounds. We're very early in the process still, and any changes will take time. Respect the developers' efforts in that they will be making changes as fast as they feel is appropriate. Don't expect everything to change based on your feedback too quickly. The developers are listening to our feedback. They do care what we think.
Be specific.
The sort of feedback that is most helpful is that which is most specific. "I don't like Vancian casting" isn't particularly useful. The response is "Ok, that's great, but now what?" Instead, be as specific as you can possibly be about what aspects of a given topic are awesome and good or horrible and bad: what impact does it have on your game, the system as a whole, whether it's confusing or counterintuitive, whether it seems incomplete and missing a key component, how it might first appear to be unimportant but have larger ramifications in other areas, etc. As specific as you can get, the better. While general feelings have merit, even if they ask a nebulous and subjective question like "Does the game feel like D&D?" then there's still opportunity to be specific. Rather than just "Yes/No" you can look to specific game elements that are the thing that really make or break it for you. Point to those directly, because it gives the development team something they can look at more closely.
Post the positive and the negative
If the nature of the internet is any guide, it will be easier to post about the things you hate rather than the things you love. But they both need attention. Sure, fixing problems is a big deal, and one of the most important functions of the playtest, but that doesn't mean that everything else that isn't at the level of "problem" in your opinion isn't worth discussing. Things that are just kinda 'meh' can slip through the cracks. The solution to making Next the best game possible is going to be found in all aspects of it, and tweaking something may have impact across the whole system. Furthermore, the things that are good could possibly be made even better.
Have fun!
Most importantly, this is a game, and the point is to have fun doing it. I know I have already, and I hope that everyone here can as well.
I really like what you have to say I know my first reaction was...oh goodness not vance magic, but I listened to what Mike M. said the conference that there would be options and if most of the opitions that I like are going to be in it, or maybe they will be in it because of what my group as to say in our survey, then I can get behind this. I still like my 4th and will still continuing getting the books and collecting them but I will not freak out and give up on 5th.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 6:47AM
#39
|
|
|
I've removed content from this thread because inappropriate language is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 25, 2012 - 8:14PM
#40
|
|
|
Only one defense was very shocking for me. I was happy it was passive, mostly.
I have customization concerns, but I also liked that I didn't see a situation where someone was using a melee weapon for an aoe and not getting bonuses associated with their melee weapon as I see in 4e.
Also, I really liked the optional ignore the dice rule.
I do not like that spells vanish from character's minds. I don't think it makes sense, and I don't like the mechanical implications either. Where is the survery at to say that?
The Reasearcher background feature was awesome.
It felt like a 3.5 clone a bit with the vance magic. It did have some saving grace at-will spells though. I am concerned how many attacks the fighters and rogues will get in a single turn later on. I had read that Cook left this project, but it did not look like it mechanically.
I really liked that the fighter had range and melee weapons.
I would really like the design team to play some 3rd edition shadowrun to get a feel for one method of character growth. Players put points into the things they want to be better at. So if you want to be better at crossbow, you put points in to account for the practice you do with it.
Spoiler:
Show
Concisely: I want a system where players don't have to pick between mechanics and roleplaying. I hope 5E fails asap so a better system can be made asap.
Spoiler:
Show
|
|
|
