Introduction There are already a significant enough number of threads on the matter -- this entire forums is about discussions on the packets anyway -- but here is my view on the manner. Note that I will be using 4E terms primarily, mostly because I've played and DMed that edition.
Advantage/Disadvantage. This is so far the biggest praise I have for the playtest (and I'm considering houseruling my 4E games to use this as well). With only cover, superior cover and dodge as the static modifiers, everything else is either "roll twice and get the better" and "roll twice and get the worse". Simple, effective.
Finesse Weapons. A simple solution to a long-standing issue regarding basic attacks. Effectively removes feat tax (for some).
At-Will Cantrips. They at least took a hint from 4E on this one.
Action Simplification. Keeping it simple. I like this.
Fighter is decent. Not as good as the 4E Fighter (pre-Essentials and post-Essentials), but still tolerable.
Hit Dice. The main thing that saves this from going to "the ugly" section is the fact that we're looking at Hit Dice + Constitution modifier per HD, allowing an 18 CON Wizard to regain 5-8 HP per Hit Dice (a level 1 Wizard with 18 CON would have 19-22 HP). Otherwise, I actually prefer 4E surges in that it's a bit more realistic that more damage taken = more effort to recover hit points, as opposed to "I luckily roll and remove all the damage I can take with one hit die".
Missing mechanics. Apparently weapon training and skill training is +3. To be expected from a playtest module though, so it's only at "bad".
Only three magical power sources. Arcane, Divine, Psionics (to be introduced later). Arcane (and to some extent, Divine) really should have been broken down and properly distributed between the Primal, Elemental, Shadow, Martial, etc. sources. It's an appeal to pre-4E people though, so it's only bad and not ugly.
Hit Point Progression. Hit point bloat still exists. Assuming a 14 CON Fighter, we're looking at an HP range of 16-26 at level 1, and 54-254 HP at level 20 (playtest sheets show averages, "how to play" has the HP rules).
Vancian Magic in general. Not only is it back to classical Vancian, but flat out blocking wizards from casting spells when using armor? Seriously, not even encounter spells, which is closer to Vance's magic?
Messy spells. While 4E's mechanics seem to be there in the rules, it's only with the INT vs. AC attacks. Everything else is just, well, out of whack, simply put: some spells grant ability saves, some don't grant any resistance, some grant variable resistance.
Buried mechanics. The fact that everything is in paragraph form is aesthetically appealing to some, but the only thing saving you from the burden of having to pore through the entire wall of text just to look for (and use) the mechanical effects is the fact that all the text is relatively short. However, Grease, Hold Person, Mirror Image, and Turn Undead have questionable lengths especially in re-readability.
Magic still trumps everything else. It's not as bad as 3.5, but seriously, Grease? Sleep?
Monster system. It is absolutely horrible. Do the monster traits really have to be separated from the rest of the monster block? Do spellcaster monsters HAVE to use PC spells? Honestly, in spite of the complexity and challenge in creating monsters in 4E, at least they had the freedom to be anything the DM wants (on the fly).
Wall of Text. As in buried mechanics for spells, but with the sheer amount of fluff text even within the mechanics, I fear that I can't even start running the playtest in my group, who are turned off by the archaic nature of the whole thing.
Conclusion Simply put: not enough pros, and the devs still a lot to work on before I can actually run it with my group.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Yes, after reflection, d&d5 is a perfect 1980's rpg. They forgived all the good ideas of DND4, take the worst of dd3 and take nothing from dd2.5 (raaah lovely skills and powers! a lot of good idea and the base of dnd4!)
First of all, thank you for a thorough but concise summary of your likes and dislikes about the rules we have seen so far. It's a refreshing improvement from all the threads complaning about stuff that for all we know isn't even an actual problem, we just haven't seen the full system yet. Now, onto your comments! (I'm going to skip "the good" because I agree on all points, and there's no point preaching to the choir.)
- Hit dice and power source categorization can be easily fixed with quick house rules. For example, "gain half of your maximum HD roll when you level up." (Interestingly, this seems to be how they handled the HP progression for the premade characters.) Or when druids come out, simply saying "druid spells have the primal power source." etc.
- The missing mechanics were clearly left out intentionally, either because the math hasn't been nailed down quite yet, or because they didn't want us worrying about the specifics of where all our bonuses are coming from before we've given it a thurough playtest (if that's the case, serious backfire on that particular goal.)
- Sadly, vancian magic is probably not going to go away, it's just one of those things where they can't make everyone happy. Unfortunately for us 4E fans, we represent a smaller demographic than the combined fandoms of every other edition (all of which used vancian magic.) Oh well, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, and with any luck there might eventually be a module for modifying the magic system. I doubt it, but I can dream.
- As for hit point bloat, unclear wording and mechanics buried in gygaxian prose, and somewhat clunky monster stat blocks (hey, at least they're better than 3.5 monsters, right?) we can only hope they will take our concerns to heart and adress these issues. Though I'm doubtful about the writing style getting much better, to be honest.
First of all, thank you for a thorough but concise summary of your likes and dislikes about the rules we have seen so far. It's a refreshing improvement from all the threads complaning about stuff that for all we know isn't even an actual problem, we just haven't seen the full system yet. Now, onto your comments! (I'm going to skip "the good" because I agree on all points, and there's no point preaching to the choir.)
- Hit dice and power source categorization can be easily fixed with quick house rules. For example, "gain half of your maximum HD roll when you level up." (Interestingly, this seems to be how they handled the HP progression for the premade characters.) Or when druids come out, simply saying "druid spells have the primal power source." etc.
- The missing mechanics were clearly left out intentionally, either because the math hasn't been nailed down quite yet, or because they didn't want us worrying about the specifics of where all our bonuses are coming from before we've given it a thurough playtest (if that's the case, serious backfire on that particular goal.)
Regardless of the reasons people have already reverse engineered it, so the point is moot.
- Sadly, vancian magic is probably not going to go away, it's just one of those things where they can't make everyone happy. Unfortunately for us 4E fans, we represent a smaller demographic than the combined fandoms of every other edition (all of which used vancian magic.) Oh well, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, and with any luck there might eventually be a module for modifying the magic system. I doubt it, but I can dream.
- As for hit point bloat, unclear wording and mechanics buried in gygaxian prose, and somewhat clunky monster stat blocks (hey, at least they're better than 3.5 monsters, right?) we can only hope they will take our concerns to heart and adress these issues. Though I'm doubtful about the writing style getting much better, to be honest.
First of all, thank you for a thorough but concise summary of your likes and dislikes about the rules we have seen so far. It's a refreshing improvement from all the threads complaning about stuff that for all we know isn't even an actual problem, we just haven't seen the full system yet. Now, onto your comments! (I'm going to skip "the good" because I agree on all points, and there's no point preaching to the choir.)
- Hit dice and power source categorization can be easily fixed with quick house rules. For example, "gain half of your maximum HD roll when you level up." (Interestingly, this seems to be how they handled the HP progression for the premade characters.) Or when druids come out, simply saying "druid spells have the primal power source." etc.
That wasn't really my point. Some people like rolling hit dice. These rules are for them. Those of us who don't like rolling hit dice shouldn't need to follow those rules, but there's no reason that the people who do like rolling them should be forced to play the way we like to play, any more than we should be forced to play the way they like to. It's easier for us to just say "in my game, we take maximum hit dice" than it is for them to take a static system apart and try to build a balanced randomly generated HP systm that fits within the framework of rules that weren't built that way.
- The missing mechanics were clearly left out intentionally, either because the math hasn't been nailed down quite yet, or because they didn't want us worrying about the specifics of where all our bonuses are coming from before we've given it a thurough playtest (if that's the case, serious backfire on that particular goal.)
Regardless of the reasons people have already reverse engineered it, so the point is moot.
No, it's not. WotC doesn't care if we've reverse engineered it, that's not the feedback they're looking for, so any effort discussing it is wasted effort, because I can garuntee you they're going to ignore all of it. When (and if) they want feedback on that, they will tell us so, and show us the rules. Until then, don't waste your energy.
Not sure I'm seeing the hit point situation as bloat.
At first glance, PCs might seem to have a lot of HP, but they also seem to get a lot less in-encounter healing.
An Orc Chieftain has 45 hp. The level 1 slayer doing minimum hit damage can beat that in (45/9) 5 rounds solo. If he is eating the minimum 5 damage each round in return, he's gonna be down by round 4.
Cure Light Wounds (d8+4) and a Orc Chieftain attack (+6; d8+4) are basically offsets if the healer rolls better than the attack.
If you consider the fighter vs an orc (+3; d8+1), he can kill in the orc in 2 rounds max (1 round very likely) and potentially take up to 45% of his hp in a single strike, 75% with a charge.
This doesn't seem like padded sumo fighting to me.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
Not sure I'm seeing the hit point situation as bloat.
At first glance, PCs might seem to have a lot of HP, but they also seem to get a lot less in-encounter healing.
An Orc Chieftain has 45 hp. The level 1 slayer doing minimum hit damage can beat that in (45/9) 5 rounds solo. If he is eating the minimum 5 damage each round in return, he's gonna be down by round 4.
Cure Light Wounds (d8+4) and a Orc Chieftain attack (+6; d8+4) are basically offsets if the healer rolls better than the attack.
If you consider the fighter vs an orc (+3; d8+1), he can kill in the orc in 2 rounds max (1 round very likely) and potentially take up to 45% of his hp in a single strike, 75% with a charge.
This doesn't seem like padded sumo fighting to me.
And that works great at low levels, but if the fighter is gaining an average of 6 HP every level, he's going to reach a very high HP total very quickly.
Granted, but isn't the design one that high level characters can go through more battles? With all the variable healing and the lack of second wind, characters are going to be taking a lot more punishment and need the extra padding up-front. At least that's how I read it.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
Granted, but isn't the design one that high level characters can go through more battles? With all the variable healing and the lack of second wind, characters are going to be taking a lot more punishment and need the extra padding up-front. At least that's how I read it.
Fair point. And on top of that, you should be dealing more damage at higher levels as well (fighters apparently get additional attacks, rogues get more sneak attack dice, wizards and clerics get higher level spell slots...) so maybe it'll all balance out. But at that point, why scale both up when you could just give it the same flattening treatment as AC and BAB? ...I guess at that point you wouldn't actually be gaining anything when you level up lol.
On a related note, I am so happy that they flattened AC and BAB, I always thought it was weird that everyone would get a +1 to AC and a +1 to their BAB at about the same rate. I'm not a fan of non-value-added work lol.
Granted, but isn't the design one that high level characters can go through more battles? With all the variable healing and the lack of second wind, characters are going to be taking a lot more punishment and need the extra padding up-front. At least that's how I read it.
Isn't one of the complaints about just about every edition of D&D (4E more than ever) was the amount of hit points that PCs had? They're fragile for the first few levels yes, but at high levels assuming average HP rolls and compared to monster capabilities?
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
