I just downloaded the playtest packet - and I'm really surprised! It is like "back to the roots". I'm playing D&D since the original edition. What I can see in this first playtest packet is what I have missed at least within the last three editions: the wonderful feeling of simple but useful core rules. I was amused while I read the playtest documents - they give me the feeling of "coming home". Maybe it's only my personal experience - but I would like to know, are there other "old" gamers who share my feeling?
However - my opinion based on my first impression: Very well. Please go on in this direction!
Mariel
I just downloaded the playtest packet - and I'm really surprised! It is like "back to the roots". I'm playing D&D since the original edition. What I can see in this first playtest packet is what I have missed at least within the last three editions:
Liking what I'm seeing so far: "back to the roots" indeed! One thing that's might be an issue. In a nutshell:
Use Intelligence...or resist spells that attempt to overcome your intellect. Use Wisdom resist being charmed... or to withstand an attempt to influence you.
Very similar situations, very minor distinctions between the two. Isn't an attempt to overcome one's intellect an attempt to influence and/or controll them??
Liking what I'm seeing so far: "back to the roots" indeed! One thing that's might be an issue. In a nutshell:Use Intelligence...or resist spells that attempt to overcome your intellect. Use Wisdom resist being charmed... or to withstand an attempt
Fast paced Combat is what I 'm seeing and loving it.
Fast and fresh combat with a 'back to the roots' feel - though calling it fresh is funny since it's back to the roots. It is indeed fresh though!
Fast paced Combat is what I 'm seeing and loving it.Fast and fresh combat with a 'back to the roots' feel - though calling it fresh is funny since it's back to the roots. It is indeed fresh though!
This is a rule which also exists from the beginning of D&D: Wisdom resist being charmed or controlled and Intelligence for resisting spells. It makes sense because intelligence is the primary attribut of a wizard - and who can better resist spells than a wizard knowing the secrets of magic? Wisdom is the primary attribut of a cleric - and who will charm or control a cleric who is fullfilled with faith?
In the beginning D&D rules have been designed by imagination of character classes - and NOT by mathematical fairness. Imagination is the key for successful roleplaying and not the mathematic of dices.
This is a rule which also exists from the beginning of D&D: Wisdom resist being charmed or controlled and Intelligence for resisting spells. It makes sense because intelligence is the primary attribut of a wizard - and who can better resist spells th
Yeah, I like the return to roots. This very much looks like my old D&D rulebook, except you start with a higher number of hit points and wizards and clerics get foozle light ray spells that they can cast at will.
The former is alright with me, and the colored light at will attack spells are easily house ruled.
I like this a lot. As someone who has played and enjoyed every edition from D&D to 3.5e, I will definitely be buying and playing 5th edition if this playtest is indicative of what the finished product will be like.
Yeah, I like the return to roots. This very much looks like my old D&D rulebook, except you start with a higher number of hit points and wizards and clerics get foozle light ray spells that they can cast at will.The former is alright with me, and th
I do like the feel of the rules and the GM advice. It feels well-structured but flexible, and definitely reminiscent of the better parts of older games.
I'm currently bothered by the XP for monsters, though. It seems to be the only way to get XP, which would seem to encourage murder for murder's sake, you know?
But otherwise, yes. Good stuff.
I do like the feel of the rules and the GM advice. It feels well-structured but flexible, and definitely reminiscent of the better parts of older games.I'm currently bothered by the XP for monsters, though. It seems to be the only way to get XP, wh
I do like the feel of the rules and the GM advice. It feels well-structured but flexible, and definitely reminiscent of the better parts of older games.
I'm currently bothered by the XP for monsters, though. It seems to be the only way to get XP, which would seem to encourage murder for murder's sake, you know?
But otherwise, yes. Good stuff.
Lately I've just ditched XP awards entirely and allowed player characters to liquidate their GP into XP by "buying training."
Will probably be doing the same again.
Lately I've just ditched XP awards entirely and allowed player characters to liquidate their GP into XP by "buying training." Will probably be doing the same again.
Yes - getting XP only by killing monsters is bad. But even in the very first "module" in the first D&D rulebook the party could receive XP's by other activities. It's up to the DM to reward players with XP's for solving puzzles, finding ways to solve situations without combat, discovering secrets, and much more. Of course combat is one pillar of the game - but the basement is imagination...
Yes - getting XP only by killing monsters is bad. But even in the very first "module" in the first D&D rulebook the party could receive XP's by other activities. It's up to the DM to reward players with XP's for solving puzzles, finding ways to solve
By the way: I like the fact, that the fighter inflicts the highest damage! And this is not (only) because it's like in the beginning of D&D...
My opinion is: D&D should NOT follow the unwritten rules of MMORPG's! D&D should be much more than "a tank, a damage dealer, a healer and a supporter". D&D is a cooperative game where people play together to have fun by experiencing great fantasy stories - kill the evil, save the world, find the treasure and marry the prince(ss)... or whatever. Of course there must be rules and unique characters - but the tight roles of MMORPG's are totally unnecessary.
By the way: I like the fact, that the fighter inflicts the highest damage! And this is not (only) because it's like in the beginning of D&D...My opinion is: D&D should NOT follow the unwritten rules of MMORPG's! D&D should be much more than "a tank,
I have never played any version before 3.5, still very new to the table top RPG world. So this simplistic tone/feel is quite new to me, and I'm enjoying it. It's less like reading pseudocode for a video game and more like rules for human eyes. It's rather pleasing to read. :3
I have never played any version before 3.5, still very new to the table top RPG world. So this simplistic tone/feel is quite new to me, and I'm enjoying it. It's less like reading pseudocode for a video game and more like rules for human eyes. It's r
I have never played any version before 3.5, still very new to the table top RPG world. So this simplistic tone/feel is quite new to me, and I'm enjoying it. It's less like reading pseudocode for a video game and more like rules for human eyes. It's rather pleasing to read. :3
I think you would have liked the "old days" of D&D when rules have supported players. I totally agree - with 4th edition D&D seemed to become an MMORPG. But with the playtest packet a new hope has returned to the lands of pen&paper adventurers...
I think you would have liked the "old days" of D&D when rules have supported players. I totally agree - with 4th edition D&D seemed to become an MMORPG. But with the playtest packet a new hope has returned to the lands of pen&paper adventurers...
I have never played any version before 3.5, still very new to the table top RPG world. So this simplistic tone/feel is quite new to me, and I'm enjoying it. It's less like reading pseudocode for a video game and more like rules for human eyes. It's rather pleasing to read. :3
I think you would have liked the "old days" of D&D when rules have supported players. I totally agree - with 4th edition D&D seemed to become an MMORPG. But with the playtest packet a new hope has returned to the lands of pen&paper adventurers...
Ah, this line of bull again.
I think you would have liked the "old days" of D&D when rules have supported players. I totally agree - with 4th edition D&D seemed to become an MMORPG. But with the playtest packet a new hope has returned to the lands of pen&paper adventurers...[/qu
The playtest is all well and refreshingly "old-school". I like most of it.
But the real proof of the pudding will be a couple of months away when the first modules/campaigns come out. 3.5e/4e modules were really awful (as in "more like boardgame" than "role-playing")
The playtest is all well and refreshingly "old-school". I like most of it.But the real proof of the pudding will be a couple of months away when the first modules/campaigns come out.3.5e/4e modules were really awful (as in "more like boardgame" than
I too am pleasently suprised. There are certainly a few niggling details that get under my skin, but for this early in the development process the rules are really quite outstanding. The mechanics are simple, intuitive, and fluid, while retaining the ability to handle a lot of diverse situations. A large portion of my final opinion will rest on the optional rules for adding complexity, but this is an exellent skeleton.
I too am pleasently suprised. There are certainly a few niggling details that get under my skin, but for this early in the development process the rules are really quite outstanding. The mechanics are simple, intuitive, and fluid, while retaining the
I have never played any version before 3.5, still very new to the table top RPG world. So this simplistic tone/feel is quite new to me, and I'm enjoying it. It's less like reading pseudocode for a video game and more like rules for human eyes. It's rather pleasing to read. :3
I think you would have liked the "old days" of D&D when rules have supported players. I totally agree - with 4th edition D&D seemed to become an MMORPG. But with the playtest packet a new hope has returned to the lands of pen&paper adventurers...
Ah, this line of bull again.
I think the 4th edition has "devided" the D&D community - more than any other edition before. Of course it is playable and like any other edition it contains some good ideas. But for me it lacks in the "D&D feeling". Finally it has moved too far away from the game I loved so much when I started playing D&D more than 30 years ago. Maybe I'm too old now to understand the 4th edition. But on the other hand: maybe D&Dnext will renew the "D&D feeling"...?
I think you would have liked the "old days" of D&D when rules have supported players. I totally agree - with 4th edition D&D seemed to become an MMORPG. But with the playtest packet a new hope has returned to the lands of pen&paper adventurers...[/qu
I have never played any version before 3.5, still very new to the table top RPG world. So this simplistic tone/feel is quite new to me, and I'm enjoying it. It's less like reading pseudocode for a video game and more like rules for human eyes. It's rather pleasing to read. :3
I think you would have liked the "old days" of D&D when rules have supported players. I totally agree - with 4th edition D&D seemed to become an MMORPG. But with the playtest packet a new hope has returned to the lands of pen&paper adventurers...
Ah, this line of bull again.
I think the 4th edition has "devided" the D&D community - more than any other edition before.
I don't think that's true. The biggest fracture comes from 3e, specifically, the GSL + OGL combo that allowed patfhinder to exist.
I think you would have liked the "old days" of D&D when rules have supported players. I totally agree - with 4th edition D&D seemed to become an MMORPG. But with the playtest packet a new hope has returned to the lands of pen&paper adventurers...[/qu
So I started in 3rd and have played 3.5 and 4e a lot... so I definitley don't have the same roots though I was pleased to see a fairly concise set of core rules. I think that despite the differing opinions of editions we all prefer a simple set of well rounded rules.
So I started in 3rd and have played 3.5 and 4e a lot... so I definitley don't have the same roots though I was pleased to see a fairly concise set of core rules. I think that despite the differing opinions of editions we all prefer a simple set of
Well, after 8 hours of playtesting, I'm disappointed with 5E. The documents are incredibly sparse. It only seems to have one monster called "HTTP Error", and I can't figure out whether 400 is its AC, or its hit points, or what. And there aren't any character pregens, so I can't even see how an encounter might go.
Well, after 8 hours of playtesting, I'm disappointed with 5E. The documents are incredibly sparse. It only seems to have one monster called "HTTP Error", and I can't figure out whether 400 is its AC, or its hit points, or what. And there aren't any character pregens, so I can't even see how an encounter might go.
This^
That's only the invalid URL error page, and not the playtest packet itself. Be patient, they're working on fixing that.
This^ [/quote]That's only the invalid URL error page, and not the playtest packet itself. Be patient, they're working on fixing that.
I think the 4th edition has "devided" the D&D community - more than any other edition before.
I don't think that's true. The biggest fracture comes from 3e, specifically, the GSL + OGL combo that allowed patfhinder to exist.
Pathfinder didn't exist until after 4E was released.
You can blame the OGL, but the fact is that the game was released because 4E divided the community. Whether or not the people who dislike it have valid reasons is irrelevant; the fact is that large portions of the community dislike 4E.
(Note that I like 4E. I don't think it's perfect, and I don't think all of its changes were good ones, but on the whole I like it. I don't think any edition of D&D is perfect.)
I don't think that's true. The biggest fracture comes from 3e, specifically, the GSL + OGL combo that allowed patfhinder to exist.[/quote]Pathfinder didn't exist until after 4E was released.You can blame the OGL, but the fact is that the game was re
I do like the feel of the rules and the GM advice. It feels well-structured but flexible, and definitely reminiscent of the better parts of older games.
I'm currently bothered by the XP for monsters, though. It seems to be the only way to get XP, which would seem to encourage murder for murder's sake, you know?
But otherwise, yes. Good stuff.
you and marie hit on my biggest want for ths version: non combat based objective XP rewards.
for finding that secret door that leads to the bandit's underground lair: 50 xp. successfully restoring that power crystal that lights the wizards tower: 100 xp heck, just returning that letter to the town speaker that would prevent a major misunderstanding with the local gnome caravan 50 xp
these are just examples, but i'm hoping you get the idea.
-star26
you and marie hit on my biggest want for ths version: non combat based objective XP rewards.for finding that secret door that leads to the bandit's underground lair: 50 xp.successfully restoring that power crystal that lights the wizards tower: 100 x
You can blame the OGL, but the fact is that the game was released because 4E divided the community. Whether or not the people who dislike it have valid reasons is irrelevant; the fact is that large portions of the community dislike 4E.
Every new edition divides the community. Edition wars didn't start with the 3e to 4e transition. However, the OGL + SRD combo facilitated a 3rd party's co-opting of a previous edition. Now gamers had a choice of trying the new edition or buying into a knockoff of something they already love. A lot of these same gamers heard reviews from people that totally misunderstood 4e (just look at how woefully ignorant the 2 part Game Geeks review of 4e is). If I was given a choice of sticking with a knockoff of what I know I like or trying something that was painted as horrible (and that only people who actually were familiar with it would be able to refute), I'd stick with the thing that was closest to what I liked, and I think a lot of people would do the same.
(Note that I like 4E. I don't think it's perfect, and I don't think all of its changes were good ones, but on the whole I like it. I don't think any edition of D&D is perfect.)
You and I can agree on that wholeheartedly. I came into the game with BECMI, and played through 4e. Each edition seemed to me to be an improvement on the last. I'm hoping that trend continues with DDN.
I don't think that's true. The biggest fracture comes from 3e, specifically, the GSL + OGL combo that allowed patfhinder to exist.[/quote]Pathfinder didn't exist until after 4E was released.[/quote]I'm not blaming pathfinder. They just took advanta
Damn, the playtest has impressed me so far. It's just the right mix of old-school and some of the innovations from 4E. I guess this one is going to get my money after all; I have learned once again not to doubt wizards. I LOVE that casters still have at-will abilities, and the Themes will be a great way to make a class more customizable - I like the dwarf fighters Slayer theme, and I could easily see a 'Guardian' theme that would give him back the stickiness of the 4E Fighter (my favorite class) to make him a Defender. Well done, WotC.
Damn, the playtest has impressed me so far. It's just the right mix of old-school and some of the innovations from 4E. I guess this one is going to get my money after all; I have learned once again not to doubt wizards. I LOVE that casters still have
I just downloaded the playtest packet - and I'm really surprised! It is like "back to the roots". I'm playing D&D since the original edition. What I can see in this first playtest packet is what I have missed at least within the last three editions: the wonderful feeling of simple but useful core rules. I was amused while I read the playtest documents - they give me the feeling of "coming home". Maybe it's only my personal experience - but I would like to know, are there other "old" gamers who share my feeling?
However - my opinion based on my first impression: Very well. Please go on in this direction!
Mariel
I agree, a great beginning. I love the old school feel. The 4th eds can sit and spin. This is really bringing back the old guard.
I agree, a great beginning. I love the old school feel. The 4th eds can sit and spin. This is really bringing back the old guard.
I agree with the OP. So far I'm very happy. I just hope it doesn't get messed up. It reminds me of the good ole days of 2e, but with an update adding all the things that have been learned. It may bring me back into the fold of D&D after leaving because we didn't like 4e.
I agree with the OP. So far I'm very happy. I just hope it doesn't get messed up. It reminds me of the good ole days of 2e, but with an update adding all the things that have been learned. It may bring me back into the fold of D&D after leaving be
Well, after 8 hours of playtesting, I'm disappointed with 5E. The documents are incredibly sparse. It only seems to have one monster called "HTTP Error", and I can't figure out whether 400 is its AC, or its hit points, or what. And there aren't any character pregens, so I can't even see how an encounter might go.
This^
That's only the invalid URL error page, and not the playtest packet itself. Be patient, they're working on fixing that.
There are just not enough facepalms for this...
This^ [/quote]That's only the invalid URL error page, and not the playtest packet itself. Be patient, they're working on fixing that.[/quote]There are just not enough facepalms for this...
Well, after 8 hours of playtesting, I'm disappointed with 5E. The documents are incredibly sparse. It only seems to have one monster called "HTTP Error", and I can't figure out whether 400 is its AC, or its hit points, or what. And there aren't any character pregens, so I can't even see how an encounter might go.
This^
That's only the invalid URL error page, and not the playtest packet itself. Be patient, they're working on fixing that.
There are just not enough facepalms for this...
...Whaaat? :D
This^ [/quote]That's only the invalid URL error page, and not the playtest packet itself. Be patient, they're working on fixing that.[/quote]There are just not enough facepalms for this...[/quote]...Whaaat? :D
My first impression is very positive, I´m happy on how simple it is.
The greatest thing is that it is simple enough for non experienced players to jump in, wich I hitnk is a very important aspect for D&D and the future of the game.
The monsters are totally old school, which is fine, although I would like to have some layers of complexity like powers to add in the monsters. I know it´s the first basic presentation, but I prefer monsters Vault text over this one. I love that most of the monsters have much less HPs, which solves the main problem with 4E, combats that drag to long.
I´m sure we are going to see cool maneuvers and options like in 4E for fighters and other classes as modules for the game, and the great thing, we are going to be able to customize and add whatever rules we prefer on top of the basic rule set.
I definitely love the Character sheets. Beautiful stuff, nicely designed and cleanly presented.
So far, great stuff.
My first impression is very positive, I´m happy on how simple it is. The greatest thing is that it is simple enough for non experienced players to jump in, wich I hitnk is a very important aspect for D&D and the future of the game. The mons
One big, major bone I will have to pick with Next if it doesn't get fixed: Fighters need more. They feel boring right now, they're almost perfect but they need something to make them stand out when placed next to wizards who can hurl bolts of flame, clerics with healy undead butt-kicking powers, and the skill virtuoso that is the Rogue. I'm assuming after level 3 they get bigger and better stuff, but as it stands the Fighter class has shown me very little to be excited about. The 4E Slayer was more interesting than this, and thats saying something because a class doesn't get any more basic than that one.
So far I like what i'm seeing, but as it is everything I liked in the playtest, 4E does better. Keep going WotC.
One big, major bone I will have to pick with Next if it doesn't get fixed: Fighters need more. They feel boring right now, they're almost perfect but they need something to make them stand out when placed next to wizards who can hurl bolts of flame,
One big, major bone I will have to pick with Next if it doesn't get fixed: Fighters need more. They feel boring right now, they're almost perfect but they need something to make them stand out when placed next to wizards who can hurl bolts of flame, clerics with healy undead butt-kicking powers, and the skill virtuoso that is the Rogue. I'm assuming after level 3 they get bigger and better stuff, but as it stands the Fighter class has shown me very little to be excited about. The 4E Slayer was more interesting than this, and thats saying something because a class doesn't get any more basic than that one.
So far I like what i'm seeing, but as it is everything I liked in the playtest, 4E does better. Keep going WotC.
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released.
With that said, I like to play a simple fighter with multi-attacks per round. Usually, I just make improvised actions every round. The fun and excitement in this case comes during play and when you're not following a bunch of cookie cutter like powers.
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released. With that said, I like to pl
One big, major bone I will have to pick with Next if it doesn't get fixed: Fighters need more. They feel boring right now, they're almost perfect but they need something to make them stand out when placed next to wizards who can hurl bolts of flame, clerics with healy undead butt-kicking powers, and the skill virtuoso that is the Rogue. I'm assuming after level 3 they get bigger and better stuff, but as it stands the Fighter class has shown me very little to be excited about. The 4E Slayer was more interesting than this, and thats saying something because a class doesn't get any more basic than that one.
So far I like what i'm seeing, but as it is everything I liked in the playtest, 4E does better. Keep going WotC.
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released.
With that said, I like to play a simple fighter with multi-attacks per round. Usually, I just make improvised actions every round. The fun and excitement in this case comes during play and when you're not following a bunch of cookie cutter like powers.
Powers are only as cookie-cutter as you make them, much like basic attacks. The difference is basic attacks limit how I can describe them after a point - I hit for 2d6+3 damage can't suddenly become "I sweep my blade at his legs with a slow, easily anticipated attack and then when he goes to block with his axe I lash out with my shield and slam him back several paces."
That was a description I used for the 4E at-will Tide of Iron frequently. It was like my fighters signature move. I can't do that with a basic attack, because a basic attack doesn't move them anywhere or do anything but damage. Get what i'm saying?
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released. With that said, I like to pl
One big, major bone I will have to pick with Next if it doesn't get fixed: Fighters need more. They feel boring right now, they're almost perfect but they need something to make them stand out when placed next to wizards who can hurl bolts of flame, clerics with healy undead butt-kicking powers, and the skill virtuoso that is the Rogue. I'm assuming after level 3 they get bigger and better stuff, but as it stands the Fighter class has shown me very little to be excited about. The 4E Slayer was more interesting than this, and thats saying something because a class doesn't get any more basic than that one.
So far I like what i'm seeing, but as it is everything I liked in the playtest, 4E does better. Keep going WotC.
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released.
With that said, I like to play a simple fighter with multi-attacks per round. Usually, I just make improvised actions every round. The fun and excitement in this case comes during play and when you're not following a bunch of cookie cutter like powers.
Powers are only as cookie-cutter as you make them, much like basic attacks. The difference is basic attacks limit how I can describe them after a point - I hit for 2d6+3 damage can't suddenly become "I sweep my blade at his legs with a slow, easily anticipated attack and then when he goes to block with his axe I lash out with my shield and slam him back several paces."
That was a description I used for the 4E at-will Tide of Iron frequently. It was like my fighters signature move. I can't do that with a basic attack, because a basic attack doesn't move them anywhere or do anything but damage. Get what i'm saying?
Improvised actions were the key here. We used them all the time. in fact if you played a hit and miss game with basic attacks you were playing the game incorrectly. With 2e my fighter could perform a disarm, trip, charge, or just about any other improvised action (like a push or a pull) at will. I didn't need a power either. On top of that I got several attacks per round. I could effectively perform the tide of iron power every round if I wanted to. And if I had 3 attacks per round i could do even more.
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released. With that said, I like to pl
One big, major bone I will have to pick with Next if it doesn't get fixed: Fighters need more. They feel boring right now, they're almost perfect but they need something to make them stand out when placed next to wizards who can hurl bolts of flame, clerics with healy undead butt-kicking powers, and the skill virtuoso that is the Rogue. I'm assuming after level 3 they get bigger and better stuff, but as it stands the Fighter class has shown me very little to be excited about. The 4E Slayer was more interesting than this, and thats saying something because a class doesn't get any more basic than that one.
So far I like what i'm seeing, but as it is everything I liked in the playtest, 4E does better. Keep going WotC.
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released.
With that said, I like to play a simple fighter with multi-attacks per round. Usually, I just make improvised actions every round. The fun and excitement in this case comes during play and when you're not following a bunch of cookie cutter like powers.
Powers are only as cookie-cutter as you make them, much like basic attacks. The difference is basic attacks limit how I can describe them after a point - I hit for 2d6+3 damage can't suddenly become "I sweep my blade at his legs with a slow, easily anticipated attack and then when he goes to block with his axe I lash out with my shield and slam him back several paces."
That was a description I used for the 4E at-will Tide of Iron frequently. It was like my fighters signature move. I can't do that with a basic attack, because a basic attack doesn't move them anywhere or do anything but damage. Get what i'm saying?
Improvised actions were the key here. We used them all the time. in fact if you played a hit and miss game with basic attacks you were playing the game incorrectly. With 2e my fighter could perform a disarm, trip, charge, or just about any other improvised action (like a push or a pull) at will. I didn't need a power either. On top of that I got several attacks per round. I could effectively perform the tide of iron power every round if I wanted to. And if I had 3 attacks per round i could do even more.
The problem is that improvised actions come down to DM fiat every single time. How long before a DM decides that my fighters signature move is becoming too effective, and he starts finding ways to make them less so? I have played with DM's that did that kind of crap. DM's that HATE to see fighters do anything cool, and who lack the basic understanding that when you do something so much it becomes muscle memory, a maneuver that you can execute perfectly nearly every time, you generally don't fail without some very major factors working against you. 4E powers gave me that feel; my fighter had practiced his low sword high shield maneuver so many times that he did it right every single time (unless the attack missed).
In other words, I don't trust every DM not to be a douchebag. Put it in the rules, so I don't have to improvise every single cool thing, just the cool things that my fighter isn't an expert at.
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released. With that said, I like to pl
Not to mention that it essentially requires Fighters to be incredibly creative constantly just to keep a comparable pace with Wizards, who can usually be just as creative with their spells.
Not to mention that it essentially requires Fighters to be incredibly creative constantly just to keep a comparable pace with Wizards, who can usually be just as creative with their spells.
I have never played any version before 3.5, still very new to the table top RPG world. So this simplistic tone/feel is quite new to me, and I'm enjoying it. It's less like reading pseudocode for a video game and more like rules for human eyes. It's rather pleasing to read. :3
I think you would have liked the "old days" of D&D when rules have supported players. I totally agree - with 4th edition D&D seemed to become an MMORPG. But with the playtest packet a new hope has returned to the lands of pen&paper adventurers...
I've actually gotten that impression several times here in the D&DN forums. Quite often I'll think a rule is awesome and someone will say, "that's just like in D&D [old]." Best example being how ability scores rule actions instead of a big ol' lists of skills.
As for 4e, I understand that "video game" feel. I think it's because a lot of it reads like pure math. But that's because the rules do everything they can to get out of the way. Once you understand just how far you can go with reflufing, it is actually a very powerful system for roleplaying. I look at the rules for wizard and see a knife thrower who NEVER misses ANYTHING she tosses. The problems is when the rules do come into play, they come down hard. Character creation, AoE rules, and familiars are what get me.
3.5 rules try to reach everything, the rules don't hit you nearly as hard because they're designed to always be there. But that pro is also it's con. If you can and are willing to work the rules, than you're doing good. If you want the rules out of your way, to do something outside of their reach, (like a knife thrower who always hits) than you're out of luck.
Personally, backing my character up with mechanics feels more rewarding to me than refluffing, I'm a simulationist like that. These D&DN rules feel super light to the point they almost leave. Can't say if they step back as much as they did in 4e until I see some character creation though. "DM can rule you don't have to roll," is not quite "4e gone" rules wise. Seeing the possibility for knife throwers in the wizard class with no work is "4e gone."
I think you would have liked the "old days" of D&D when rules have supported players. I totally agree - with 4th edition D&D seemed to become an MMORPG. But with the playtest packet a new hope has returned to the lands of pen&paper adventurers...[/qu
I'm agreed with everyone here: I really enjoyed the playtest. I found myself running with a couple of people who had never played a tabletop system before, but it was incredibly simple to get them playing. WotC has done a wonderful job of making it accessible and quick, and I applaud this game that does this and capture what, at least to me, D&D is.
My sole annoyance with this was trying to explain the new Hit Dice mechanic. Those who had played a previous version initially thought that they were going to lose some of their maximum hit points to gain quick healing. XD Is there not some other term that could be used?
That said, thank you, WotC, I'll be looking forward to the final product.
I'm agreed with everyone here: I really enjoyed the playtest. I found myself running with a couple of people who had never played a tabletop system before, but it was incredibly simple to get them playing. WotC has done a wonderful job of making it a
One big, major bone I will have to pick with Next if it doesn't get fixed: Fighters need more. They feel boring right now, they're almost perfect but they need something to make them stand out when placed next to wizards who can hurl bolts of flame, clerics with healy undead butt-kicking powers, and the skill virtuoso that is the Rogue. I'm assuming after level 3 they get bigger and better stuff, but as it stands the Fighter class has shown me very little to be excited about. The 4E Slayer was more interesting than this, and thats saying something because a class doesn't get any more basic than that one.
So far I like what i'm seeing, but as it is everything I liked in the playtest, 4E does better. Keep going WotC.
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released.
With that said, I like to play a simple fighter with multi-attacks per round. Usually, I just make improvised actions every round. The fun and excitement in this case comes during play and when you're not following a bunch of cookie cutter like powers.
Powers are only as cookie-cutter as you make them, much like basic attacks. The difference is basic attacks limit how I can describe them after a point - I hit for 2d6+3 damage can't suddenly become "I sweep my blade at his legs with a slow, easily anticipated attack and then when he goes to block with his axe I lash out with my shield and slam him back several paces."
That was a description I used for the 4E at-will Tide of Iron frequently. It was like my fighters signature move. I can't do that with a basic attack, because a basic attack doesn't move them anywhere or do anything but damage. Get what i'm saying?
Improvised actions were the key here. We used them all the time. in fact if you played a hit and miss game with basic attacks you were playing the game incorrectly. With 2e my fighter could perform a disarm, trip, charge, or just about any other improvised action (like a push or a pull) at will. I didn't need a power either. On top of that I got several attacks per round. I could effectively perform the tide of iron power every round if I wanted to. And if I had 3 attacks per round i could do even more.
The problem is that improvised actions come down to DM fiat every single time. How long before a DM decides that my fighters signature move is becoming too effective, and he starts finding ways to make them less so? I have played with DM's that did that kind of crap. DM's that HATE to see fighters do anything cool, and who lack the basic understanding that when you do something so much it becomes muscle memory, a maneuver that you can execute perfectly nearly every time, you generally don't fail without some very major factors working against you. 4E powers gave me that feel; my fighter had practiced his low sword high shield maneuver so many times that he did it right every single time (unless the attack missed).
In other words, I don't trust every DM not to be a douchebag. Put it in the rules, so I don't have to improvise every single cool thing, just the cool things that my fighter isn't an expert at.
Perhaps WOTC went back to old school D&D where the fighter can use the majority of magic items and any type of weapon and armor. The answer might lie in the magic items.
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released. With that said, I like to pl
One big, major bone I will have to pick with Next if it doesn't get fixed: Fighters need more. They feel boring right now, they're almost perfect but they need something to make them stand out when placed next to wizards who can hurl bolts of flame, clerics with healy undead butt-kicking powers, and the skill virtuoso that is the Rogue. I'm assuming after level 3 they get bigger and better stuff, but as it stands the Fighter class has shown me very little to be excited about. The 4E Slayer was more interesting than this, and thats saying something because a class doesn't get any more basic than that one.
So far I like what i'm seeing, but as it is everything I liked in the playtest, 4E does better. Keep going WotC.
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released.
With that said, I like to play a simple fighter with multi-attacks per round. Usually, I just make improvised actions every round. The fun and excitement in this case comes during play and when you're not following a bunch of cookie cutter like powers.
Powers are only as cookie-cutter as you make them, much like basic attacks. The difference is basic attacks limit how I can describe them after a point - I hit for 2d6+3 damage can't suddenly become "I sweep my blade at his legs with a slow, easily anticipated attack and then when he goes to block with his axe I lash out with my shield and slam him back several paces."
That was a description I used for the 4E at-will Tide of Iron frequently. It was like my fighters signature move. I can't do that with a basic attack, because a basic attack doesn't move them anywhere or do anything but damage. Get what i'm saying?
Improvised actions were the key here. We used them all the time. in fact if you played a hit and miss game with basic attacks you were playing the game incorrectly. With 2e my fighter could perform a disarm, trip, charge, or just about any other improvised action (like a push or a pull) at will. I didn't need a power either. On top of that I got several attacks per round. I could effectively perform the tide of iron power every round if I wanted to. And if I had 3 attacks per round i could do even more.
The problem is that improvised actions come down to DM fiat every single time. How long before a DM decides that my fighters signature move is becoming too effective, and he starts finding ways to make them less so? I have played with DM's that did that kind of crap. DM's that HATE to see fighters do anything cool, and who lack the basic understanding that when you do something so much it becomes muscle memory, a maneuver that you can execute perfectly nearly every time, you generally don't fail without some very major factors working against you. 4E powers gave me that feel; my fighter had practiced his low sword high shield maneuver so many times that he did it right every single time (unless the attack missed).
In other words, I don't trust every DM not to be a douchebag. Put it in the rules, so I don't have to improvise every single cool thing, just the cool things that my fighter isn't an expert at.
Perhaps WOTC went back to old school D&D where the fighter can use the majority of magic items and any type of weapon and armor. The answer might lie in the magic items.
I don't give an ats rass about magic items. I want my power to be in my character, not his golfbag of gear. If my fighter isn't just as good with basic nonmagical gear as a wizard of the same level with basic nonmagical gear, then that fighter fails. If you can take away his magic sword and suddenly he's gimped until he gets a new magic sword, he's not the fighter I want to play. Magic items should give a character new capabilities that are cool but not character-defining or expand existing ones, not be required to do his job.
I'm a Fighter. Why should I NEED magic to fight effectively?
I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with. Old editions worked that way too. I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released. With that said, I like to pl
I just downloaded the playtest packet - and I'm really surprised! It is like "back to the roots". I'm playing D&D since the original edition. What I can see in this first playtest packet is what I have missed at least within the last three editions: the wonderful feeling of simple but useful core rules. I was amused while I read the playtest documents - they give me the feeling of "coming home". Maybe it's only my personal experience - but I would like to know, are there other "old" gamers who share my feeling?
However - my opinion based on my first impression: Very well. Please go on in this direction!
I have to second the statements of above posters. This feels very streamlined, and has many of my favorite elements from earlier editions mixed with some of the later ones.
The fighter needs a few more options, but other than that I am greatly enjoying this. Hopefully I'll be able to playtest it with my group soon.
I have to second the statements of above posters. This feels very streamlined, and has many of my favorite elements from earlier editions mixed with some of the later ones.The fighter needs a few more options, but other than that I am greatly enjoyin
I was pleasantly surprised to see that they didn't overly gimp crossbows. Reload and fire as one action, but at a disadvantage? That works for me as a base rules assumption. I may houserule away the disadvantage part, but I'm glad there's a workable option for firing it every round.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that they didn't overly gimp crossbows. Reload and fire as one action, but at a disadvantage? That works for me as a base rules assumption. I may houserule away the disadvantage part, but I'm glad there's a workab
I've collected D&D off and on since 2nd. I actually had fun playing 4th.
So far, the more I look at the material, the less I think I will spend another dime on WotC material.
I've collected D&D off and on since 2nd. I actually had fun playing 4th.So far, the more I look at the material, the less I think I will spend another dime on WotC material.
I just downloaded the playtest packet - and I'm really surprised! It is like "back to the roots". I'm playing D&D since the original edition. What I can see in this first playtest packet is what I have missed at least within the last three editions: the wonderful feeling of simple but useful core rules. I was amused while I read the playtest documents - they give me the feeling of "coming home".
I was surprised too and felt a going back to the roots, and could remember my fond feelings of joy every time a new edition came out and we could stop playing the old junk. And looking at my first [& probably last] playtest, I am making plans to switch to Pathfinder or something else rather than suffer such dreck again. It may have been good for its day, but its day is long gone. On the subject of surprise, the new suprise rules are simple, and bad. Giving the fighter damage on a miss meant I killed minion hp types with ever swing whether I rolled 20 or 1. That got old by the 3rd round. [A miss never kills rule is needed here.] I may not understand the healing rules, but it looks like a lot of games will be one battle a day. [We would have stopped after 2, but we wanted to test out the death roll rules, which need correction. They are likely biased against low levels or high levels, and quite possibly both.]
I was surprised too and felt a going back to the roots, and could remember my fond feelings of joy every time a new edition came out and we could stop playing the old junk. And looking at my first [& probably last] playtest, I am making plans to swi
