Community

I'd just like to give a shout out to the development crew and say that you're doing a great job with Next. I might be in the minority here, but after play testing the latest version...my gamers fell in love with the return to basic D&D and we only want the core. Simple, and we personally would rather embellish the story telling and role play instead of tons more options that we feel bloat the system. Glad that other players want this or that added, but we're content with the direction you guys took in establishing a core first that supports additions for those who want it.

I don't think you are in the minority.

DDN has a very good core so far, just the details that need work.

I chose DDN as me favoured edition in the latest survey lol

Yeah, the things people are moaning about are on the periphery of what is a really decent system.

I'm still unhappy about bound accuracy and flat math, but that's easy to houserule out.

No. They've completely thrown their 4th edition fans under the bus. As a consumer I have seen absolutely nothing in 5th Edition that is worth my money. I have DMed and played in multiple playtests of this new edition and yet even almost a year into the playtest the game is still as a whole boring, stale, and not fun to play. They took a step backwards when designing this edition and it's really, really showing.

This is one of the years that I won't be mad when WotC lays off a bunch of their employees at Christmas time. It's become clear that those in charge of 5th edition are completely unable to make a universal edition that attracts all players. The playtest design needs new, fresh minds who are willing to accept ALL of the fans input, not just the ones who agree with the crap that Mearls is putting out.  A changing of the guard is needed in the heads of this edition's design team so that it can be forged into a competitive edition capable of regaining the title of lead D&D edition from Pathfinder.


Please don't call out other users or staff in a derogatory means on the forums. We appreciate your content and opinions, but please keep them polite. - Opal 

I actually feel the game is rather poorly designed, has no math backing up any of the numbers, and classes are boring and directionless. Many of the complaints leveid against 4e have not been fixed (I'm looking at you rogue, monk, and fighter who all use the same mechanic and play exactly the same).  At the same time many of the problems 4e fixed are being thrown out for infinitely more convoluted systems (HD healing).  There is a glimmer of hope in 5e but as of right now it does nothing for me and my group that Savage Worlds does not do better, save nostalgia for that 1-3e feel.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Gwathir wrote:

I don't think you are in the minority.

DDN has a very good core so far, just the details that need work.

I chose DDN as me favoured edition in the latest survey lol

Me too!  Even in this rough playtest form it's my favorite edition of DnD I've played so far (2nd-4th).

Nov 21, 2012 -- 11:17AM, Lawolf wrote:

I actually feel the game is rather poorly designed, has no math backing up any of the numbers, and classes are boring and directionless. Many of the complaints leveid against 4e have not been fixed (I'm looking at you rogue, monk, and fighter who all use the same mechanic and play exactly the same).  At the same time many of the problems 4e fixed are being thrown out for infinitely more convoluted systems (HD healing).

I agree entirely.  The whole Advantage "thing" is basically their way of saying that they don't care about math, and then they sprinkle 3d10 damage on top of everything as though that's supposed to fix it all.  Somehow bounded accuracy with arbitrarily inflated damage is supposed to be preferable to scaling to-hit with reasonable damage growth?

I've been less than impressed with this edition so far. I see them take step forward (ie. Expertise Dice for Fighters) and then two steps back (ie. ED for everyone and alignment restrictions....just cuz'). I actually like flatter math and bounded accuracy as I don't think a +24 to attacks feels more powerful than a +8 to attacks. I'd like to see more lateral progression for character classes, not just bonuses and buffs all the time. I'd like to see some interesting options for ALL levels, not just the few first ones then crap every 3 or so levels later. I'd like to see the Rogue NOT be a skill-monkey. I'd like to see Alignment and alignment-based mechanics as optional, but not ingrained into the game. I'd like to see a multiclass system that doesn't base itself off of 3E's horrifying system of brokeness (as in, wins every encouter) to Broke (as in, cannot contribute due to sucky math).

However, I feel DDN is going down many of these paths because people like them, regardless if they're bad mechanics. People apparently are fine with silly or broken stuff. I really don't want to deal with it anymore. Perhaps DDN just isn't geared towards me, and that's fine. I won't be a D*%&#-bag and complain and harp and moan on the stuff I don't care for, unlike the multitudes of people that treated 4th the same. For the playtest, I'll give my feedback as loud as I can and hope that they see reason that a good amount of people actually enjoyed much of 4E's system and to dismiss them with the casualness that they're doing now, is a bid sad. When it's all said and done, they (WotC) can look back at this and tell themselves "Well, we gave the majority what they wanted." and hope that it keeps them afloat for a good long while. Luckily for me they can't come back and reclaim the 4E books (and v3.5 and Pathfinder) I have.  

The first playtest was the best, since then I feel it has gone down.  But I have hopes.  I am the minority, I feel 2nd with a couple of combat tweeks is the ultimate edition.

My personal opinion. not liking DDN direction right now. Pretty tired of playtesting it, I gave up on the process. I have limited time, and I´m pretty happy using it to play my current 4E campaign... I will check it out when it is released to see how it looks, if I don´t like, i will just stick with the books I already invested my money and time in.

I think it´s too difficult to make a game that appeal to everyone, so I see as a result another fracture in D&D fan base as 5E will gather it´s own fans, but very unlikely to unite all the fans. As they are repeating their mistakes, completely ignoring the current fan base, I see 6E coming in about 4,5 years after 5E...Maybe this one will look back at 4E and learn something from it, and maybe it will be a perfected version of it.

5E, except a few things, so far not looking good to me...

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:01PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Pretty tired of playtesting it, I gave up on the process.

And yet you still make multiple posts a day here?  Why?

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:03PM, Mand12 wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:01PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Pretty tired of playtesting it, I gave up on the process.

And yet you still make multiple posts a day here?  Why?

I gave up on spending my free time on the weekend to playtest it, we dont´have much time to do the job. I am reading all the packets though, and If I had more time I would spend it actually playtesting, because I care about the game, that´s why I still post a few times a week, trying to hold on to it.

I mean, really... spending more than a year playtesting a game is not for everyone. You need to have a lot of time to invest in it. And if you are not quite liking the rules you see, you got to have a lot of stamina to keep up.

I would like 5E to have elements of the game that fit my taste, as I consider myself a WotC customer, having invested a lot of money in WotC products...

I´m waiting for the next playtest packets to see how it look like, If I change my mind I might play it, if not... what the hell...

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:15PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

I´m waiting for the next playtest packets to see how it look like, If I change my mind I might play it, if not... what the hell...

My only point is that it's a bit disingenuous to say you've given up on the process, because you clearly haven't.

I'm with you Rupert. I haven't played the playtest since the 2nd packet debut. I showed them the changes for the latest one and I got a round of groans. Not only that but we're been on hiatus for the past 2 months. So when we get back together I don't foresee us going back to the playtest.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:20PM, Mand12 wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:15PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

I´m waiting for the next playtest packets to see how it look like, If I change my mind I might play it, if not... what the hell...

My only point is that it's a bit disingenuous to say you've given up on the process, because you clearly haven't.

Well,  taking a break "from playtesting it" for a while... It doesn't prevent me from posting here ... As i said at this point in time I have not much stamina left to keep on going testing rules without enjoying it. I´m curious if other people loose stamina or interest as well...

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Diffan wrote:

I'm with you Rupert. I haven't played the playtest since the 2nd packet debut. I showed them the changes for the latest one and I got a round of groans. Not only that but we're been on hiatus for the past 2 months. So when we get back together I don't foresee us going back to the playtest.

Thanks for sharing it, I´m really curious to see if other people have the same feelings round here.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:33PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Diffan wrote:

I'm with you Rupert. I haven't played the playtest since the 2nd packet debut. I showed them the changes for the latest one and I got a round of groans. Not only that but we're been on hiatus for the past 2 months. So when we get back together I don't foresee us going back to the playtest.

Thanks for sharing it, I´m really curious to see if other people have the same feelings round here.

Yeah, the first round really turned off most of  my current group (though one remains wholeheartedly behind it, as he was behind 4E when it debuted). They are unwilling to spend D&D time playtesting (or even much free time keeping up on the playtest). Instead, we are starting our second concurrent 4E campaign Tuesday.

I've played one session with the rules, so I'm no expert, but like what I've played with so far.  THe basic game for combat is still there (roll to hit, do damage) and the skill implementation is really good.  Expertise has not yet broken itself (what difference does 1d4 make!) but I can see how it could be a problem in later levels. 

It feels like the map is unneccesary where 4e made it feel necessary.  I enjoyed both.

Getting advantage is an excellent help, but still no guarantee of success.  The rogue had advantage on cheating at cards, but he still was caught.  

My fighter is a tank, the rogue a glass cannon, wizards can be built to use magic all day - but only in a limited field.

Much fun had. 

My group was dead set against it when the 1st playtest packet came out. We playtested the 2nd packet once, and decided we didn't like it. They said that if the 3rd packet was an improvement on some of the good ideas, they'd be willing to keep on playing it. The 3rd playtest was pretty bad and they've basically written off playtesting it any more. DDN really is in a pretty sad condition considering 2 years of development time.

I'd be willing to playtest it some more, but I need a group for that. I would probably never consider running this game, though. We have moved on to 13th Age after finishing up our 4e stuff.

Looking at the future of DDN has really made me give 4E a much harder look in terms of how far I can stretch the system to do things it wasn't really designed for. Example, Warhammer 40K with 4E. I don't have the time or inclination to read and understand a hole new system so 4E will have to bridge the gap and I'm coming to learn that it does so nicely so long as you suspension of disbelief is strong.

Our other idea is implementing the Ravnica setting from M:tG into 4E rules. This is much closer to fruition and I hope to have a strong campaign going soon with that. As for DDN, I'm just *meh* about it. Like I said, it has interesting elements but they're just not enough for my tastes.

I'm still hopeful the ywill diversify human height to its full extent and offer human PCs who can be anywhere between 1'10" and 8'11". I love the Random chance aspect of ending up with a character and hope to hell that isnt lost from the game - rather it is increased.

• Roll 17d6+5 inches to determine human height.
• Offering the choice of Point Buy or Roll 3d6 per stat as the character generation method while limiting use of the point buy system to a communal point pool for the whole party.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 4:57PM, yellowdingo wrote:

I'm still hopeful the ywill diversify human height to its full extent and offer human PCs who can be anywhere between 1'10" and 8'11". I love the Random chance aspect of ending up with a character and hope to hell that isnt lost from the game - rather it is increased.

• Roll 17d6+5 inches to determine human height.
• Offering the choice of Point Buy or Roll 3d6 per stat as the character generation method while limiting use of the point buy system to a communal point pool for the whole party.

As an option, sure. As a standard way of creating characters......I'd hope not. If someone wants to roll for their height, by all means go ahead and have a blast. I just hope this isn't one of those things that DMs implement across the board with no say otherwise. Same with stat generation, I like point-buy/Stat array instead of rolling.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 11:40AM, Saelorn wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 11:17AM, Lawolf wrote:

I actually feel the game is rather poorly designed, has no math backing up any of the numbers, and classes are boring and directionless. Many of the complaints leveid against 4e have not been fixed (I'm looking at you rogue, monk, and fighter who all use the same mechanic and play exactly the same).  At the same time many of the problems 4e fixed are being thrown out for infinitely more convoluted systems (HD healing).

I agree entirely.  The whole Advantage "thing" is basically their way of saying that they don't care about math, and then they sprinkle 3d10 damage on top of everything as though that's supposed to fix it all.  Somehow bounded accuracy with arbitrarily inflated damage is supposed to be preferable to scaling to-hit with reasonable damage growth?

I get what you are saying, damage does seem to bloat quite a bit with deadly strike. this needs work.

But bounded accuracy fixes allot of my beef with 3E and 4E, i just had to house rule skill mastery.

Advantage also works great i play for me in play and simplifies the math 

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Diffan wrote:

I'm with you Rupert. I haven't played the playtest since the 2nd packet debut. I showed them the changes for the latest one and I got a round of groans. Not only that but we're been on hiatus for the past 2 months. So when we get back together I don't foresee us going back to the playtest.

My concern...

I'm beginning to see more and more of this and it strikes me as not only odd, but dangerous, to the process.

I'm fairly certain there are folks out there with this same grumbly attitude, that still post regularly regarding this playtest process, and who also continue to respond to the surveys. Some of them, unlike at least the few of you here who admit it publicly, keep such an important fact to themselves.

Yet, they are not actually playtesting the system. How is that fair? Their "less tested" opinion (I originally wanted to say "ignorant", but that's too inflammatory, because I'm just trying to say they aren't developing any practical data, just theory and math spreadsheets calculated in a vacuum) is given as much weight as those of us actively playing this stuff and interested in giving critical feedback.

That's very unfortunate. I wonder if the occasional set-back some of us feel we've witnessed through this process of changes, was as a result of the devs getting hounded about something, not necessarily bad, but perceived as such by the grognardian theorists with a grudge against the system...

1' 10" high? What human, capable of adventuring is 1' 10"?

Nov 21, 2012 -- 11:17AM, Lawolf wrote:

I actually feel the game is rather poorly designed, has no math backing up any of the numbers, and classes are boring and directionless. Many of the complaints leveid against 4e have not been fixed (I'm looking at you rogue, monk, and fighter who all use the same mechanic and play exactly the same).  At the same time many of the problems 4e fixed are being thrown out for infinitely more convoluted systems (HD healing).  There is a glimmer of hope in 5e but as of right now it does nothing for me and my group that Savage Worlds does not do better, save nostalgia for that 1-3e feel.

Are you saying you prefered 3e where the Rogue/Fighter etc had one or two mechanics - and were made to drag all of their combat ability from Feats? Because that is what this is replacing - its putting the combat ability back into the class, so that the characters can access a breadth of abilities through their Feats.

I'm not saying the classes are finished, no, not by any means - and I agree that each class needs something to call their own (Ki on the Monk is a good first step in this direction) - whether that is dragging the Sneak Attack and Flurry of Blows away from maneuvers, and letting their maneuvars be entirely for effects etc... Or moving more skill oriented things out of maneuvars...

But not have any point have I thought, "these classes all feel the same when played". The Rogue and Fighter in 3e felt more alike than this - just saying. 

Nov 21, 2012 -- 8:24PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Diffan wrote:

I'm with you Rupert. I haven't played the playtest since the 2nd packet debut. I showed them the changes for the latest one and I got a round of groans. Not only that but we're been on hiatus for the past 2 months. So when we get back together I don't foresee us going back to the playtest.

My concern...

I'm beginning to see more and more of this and it strikes me as not only odd, but dangerous, to the process.

I'm fairly certain there are folks out there with this same grumbly attitude, that still post regularly regarding this playtest process, and who also continue to respond to the surveys. Some of them, unlike at least the few of you here who admit it publicly, keep such an important fact to themselves.

Yet, they are not actually playtesting the system. How is that fair? Their "less tested" opinion (I originally wanted to say "ignorant", but that's too inflammatory, because I'm just trying to say they aren't developing any practical data, just theory and math spreadsheets calculated in a vacuum) is given as much weight as those of us actively playing this stuff and interested in giving critical feedback.

That's very unfortunate. I wonder if the occasional set-back some of us feel we've witnessed through this process of changes, was as a result of the devs getting hounded about something, not necessarily bad, but perceived as such by the grognardian theorists with a grudge against the system...

With open playtests, I'm sure this is encountered all the time. You have to expect people to only get the information, assimilate it in a vacuum, and respond accordingly based on math data instead of actual gameplay. I'd like to continue the Playtest with my group (well, up until the recent packet anyways) but 2 people have dropped out of our group temporarly. Nothing I can really do to stop this but it doesn't mean that our imput on how things look are any less valid than someone who's actually played the whole thing ALL the time. I don't have to use the playtest material to tell you that I don't like multiple classes getting Expertise Die. I don't have to playtest the info to tell you the Two-Weapon Fighting rules are just garbage (as of right now). I don't have to playtest the info to tell you how bad Alignment Requirements are to the overall system and general outlook for a game like D&D. I don't have to playtest the Rogue to tell you that the maneuvers seem weak and aren't very solid when compared to the Fighter.

Basically, life isn't fair and never will be. There will be people (like myself) who've read over and over the playtest and see things that just don't interest me (like the magical items not having sell values) or anger me (like alignment restrictions) and will voice that over and over and over again until the books are printed. This is our one chance to help establish a game that has elements I like, and I'm going to push for those elements to be in the game. Wizards really only has one shot at this and it'd better be good coming out of the gates. I promised I'd give it 1 FULL year from release to put out info and supplements that support my style of play. But, if in that year, they produce the same old Tolkien-esque, old-school D&D feel of crap I've played before, I'm not going to buy it. No hard feelings. No complaining on the boards. No consistant BS from grognards and other stuff we 4E fans have had to suffer through EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 2008. I'd just quit and keep paying my DDI subscription so long as it relates to the online Character Builder and Compendium for 4E.   

Nov 21, 2012 -- 8:58PM, Youngy wrote:

Are you saying you prefered 3e where the Rogue/Fighter etc had one or two mechanics - and were made to drag all of their combat ability from Feats? Because that is what this is replacing - its putting the combat ability back into the class, so that the characters can access a breadth of abilities through their Feats.

I know you weren't addressing me, but yes I can honestly say that I preferred the 3e fighter and rogue.  I enjoyed how the fighter could switch between weapons, from melee to thrown to projectile, as the situation demanded and action economy allowed.  I liked maneuvering into position to force the enemy to make the tough decision of whether or not to run past me to get to the wizard - and possibly drop from an opportunity attack.

Even the rogue, whose combat ability basically revolved around getting into flanking position and then wailing away with both hands, still had to get into position and maintain it while minimizing exposure to enemy attacks (by keeping the fighter between you and the enemies, to force opportunity attacks and provide cover).

But not have any point have I thought, "these classes all feel the same when played". The Rogue and Fighter in 3e felt more alike than this - just saying. 

Contrast with the single-action TotM rogue and fighter, who function most efficiently by just standing there and attacking.  The only "interesting" decision - barring a horde of minions - is in the rogue choosing to attack the same target as the fighter, to gain sneak attack.

Yes, and every playtest packet since the 1st one has gone steadily downhill, IME.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:42PM, Diffan wrote:

Looking at the future of DDN has really made me give 4E a much harder look in terms of how far I can stretch the system to do things it wasn't really designed for. Example, Warhammer 40K with 4E.

Why not just play the one of the 40k RPGs by Fantasy Flight Games?

Nov 21, 2012 -- 11:56PM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:42PM, Diffan wrote:

Looking at the future of DDN has really made me give 4E a much harder look in terms of how far I can stretch the system to do things it wasn't really designed for. Example, Warhammer 40K with 4E.

Why not just play the one of the 40k RPGs by Fantasy Flight Games?

He might want to play something other than a human.  All the FFG RPGs I can find are completely human focused.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 8:24PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Diffan wrote:

I'm with you Rupert. I haven't played the playtest since the 2nd packet debut. I showed them the changes for the latest one and I got a round of groans. Not only that but we're been on hiatus for the past 2 months. So when we get back together I don't foresee us going back to the playtest.

My concern...

I'm beginning to see more and more of this and it strikes me as not only odd, but dangerous, to the process.

I'm fairly certain there are folks out there with this same grumbly attitude, that still post regularly regarding this playtest process, and who also continue to respond to the surveys. Some of them, unlike at least the few of you here who admit it publicly, keep such an important fact to themselves.

Yet, they are not actually playtesting the system. How is that fair? Their "less tested" opinion (I originally wanted to say "ignorant", but that's too inflammatory, because I'm just trying to say they aren't developing any practical data, just theory and math spreadsheets calculated in a vacuum) is given as much weight as those of us actively playing this stuff and interested in giving critical feedback.

That's very unfortunate. I wonder if the occasional set-back some of us feel we've witnessed through this process of changes, was as a result of the devs getting hounded about something, not necessarily bad, but perceived as such by the grognardian theorists with a grudge against the system...

Would you prefer that groups/individuals unhappy with the material presented (unhappy enough that their regular D&D group will not play it) NOT give feedback?

That does not seem like the best way for the final product to please as many current and former D&D players as possible, to me.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:15PM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

I mean, really... spending more than a year playtesting a game is not for everyone. You need to have a lot of time to invest in it. And if you are not quite liking the rules you see, you got to have a lot of stamina to keep up.

I would like 5E to have elements of the game that fit my taste, as I consider myself a WotC customer, having invested a lot of money in WotC products...

I´m waiting for the next playtest packets to see how it look like, If I change my mind I might play it, if not... what the hell...

I am happy that they are spending so much time, specifically because I have so little spare time. My group only meets every other Friday evening; we need all the chronological time they've been giving us, just to get a few playtest sessions in between packet releases.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Diffan wrote:

With open playtests, I'm sure this is encountered all the time. You have to expect people to only get the information, assimilate it in a vacuum, and respond accordingly based on math data instead of actual gameplay. I'd like to continue the Playtest with my group (well, up until the recent packet anyways) but 2 people have dropped out of our group temporarly. Nothing I can really do to stop this but it doesn't mean that our imput on how things look are any less valid than someone who's actually played the whole thing ALL the time. I don't have to use the playtest material to tell you that I don't like multiple classes getting Expertise Die.

You don't like the idea of multiple classes getting ED; if you haven't played each of them separately, you don't really know if they play the same at all.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Diffan wrote:

I don't have to playtest the info to tell you the Two-Weapon Fighting rules are just garbage (as of right now).

Okay, I'll give you this one; but, remember, the current TWF rules are designed for any character to use, not for a character that will specialize in TWF (or have it as a class feature - which I hope they avoid). I would like to see it a Specialty of its own.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Diffan wrote:

I don't have to playtest the info to tell you how bad Alignment Requirements are to the overall system and general outlook for a game like D&D.

On the contrary, alignments (and flavorful benefits/detriments) are very good for the game; as long as they are optional for players that don't like them.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Diffan wrote:

I don't have to playtest the Rogue to tell you that the maneuvers seem weak and aren't very solid when compared to the Fighter.

Seem is the key word here; I'm glad you've finally recognized that fact, about only reading the material and not actually playtesting it (at least for mechanics).

Nov 21, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Diffan wrote:

Basically, life isn't fair and never will be. There will be people (like myself) who've read over and over the playtest and see things that just don't interest me (like the magical items not having sell values) or anger me (like alignment restrictions) and will voice that over and over and over again until the books are printed. This is our one chance to help establish a game that has elements I like, and I'm going to push for those elements to be in the game. Wizards really only has one shot at this and it'd better be good coming out of the gates. I promised I'd give it 1 FULL year from release to put out info and supplements that support my style of play. But, if in that year, they produce the same old Tolkien-esque, old-school D&D feel of crap I've played before, I'm not going to buy it. No hard feelings. No complaining on the boards. No consistant BS from grognards and other stuff we 4E fans have had to suffer through EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 2008. I'd just quit and keep paying my DDI subscription so long as it relates to the online Character Builder and Compendium for 4E.

This is the type of thing that doesn't need to be playtested and can, therefore, be given quality feedback without playtesting.

Alignments should be easily ignored, but not excluded. Too many people like them and want them included.

I agree though, that they should not be irrevocably tied to strong mechanics; I think, for the sake of those of us who like alignment to have an effect, simple situational bonuses/penalties (benefits/detriments) should be enough.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 12:14AM, Chakravant wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 11:56PM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:42PM, Diffan wrote:

Looking at the future of DDN has really made me give 4E a much harder look in terms of how far I can stretch the system to do things it wasn't really designed for. Example, Warhammer 40K with 4E.

Why not just play the one of the 40k RPGs by Fantasy Flight Games?

He might want to play something other than a human.  All the FFG RPGs I can find are completely human focused.

There are rules for playing Orks, Kroot, and Dark Eldar in various splatbooks for Rogue Trader.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:19AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Diffan wrote:

I don't have to playtest the info to tell you the Two-Weapon Fighting rules are just garbage (as of right now).

Okay, I'll give you this one; but, remember, the current TWF rules are designed for any character to use, not for a character that will specialize in TWF (or have it as a class feature - which I hope they avoid). I would like to see it a Specialty of its own.

I'll point out that it's entirely possible to create a Fighter or Rogue that specializes in TWF right now. Just take Composed Attack, Ambush Specialist, and aim to get Advantage as much as possible to offset your Disadvantage from TWF, and use Composed Attack to offset your Disadvantage when you can't.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 8:24PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Diffan wrote:

I'm with you Rupert. I haven't played the playtest since the 2nd packet debut. I showed them the changes for the latest one and I got a round of groans. Not only that but we're been on hiatus for the past 2 months. So when we get back together I don't foresee us going back to the playtest.

My concern...

I'm beginning to see more and more of this and it strikes me as not only odd, but dangerous, to the process.

I'm fairly certain there are folks out there with this same grumbly attitude, that still post regularly regarding this playtest process, and who also continue to respond to the surveys. Some of them, unlike at least the few of you here who admit it publicly, keep such an important fact to themselves.

Yet, they are not actually playtesting the system. How is that fair? Their "less tested" opinion (I originally wanted to say "ignorant", but that's too inflammatory, because I'm just trying to say they aren't developing any practical data, just theory and math spreadsheets calculated in a vacuum) is given as much weight as those of us actively playing this stuff and interested in giving critical feedback.

That's very unfortunate. I wonder if the occasional set-back some of us feel we've witnessed through this process of changes, was as a result of the devs getting hounded about something, not necessarily bad, but perceived as such by the grognardian theorists with a grudge against the system...

My thoughts as well. Getting allot of negative feedback from so called playtesters that arn't even playtesting lol.

Sometimes something looks bad on paper but works while some things look good on paper but are terrible in play.

For example, I see allot of complaints about 'dead levels', well, that doesn't effect actual in the moment gameplay nor how the system works. It just sucks for levelling and twitches at our obsessive compulsive minds. WOTC has even said that it isn't their focus yet, they just want to make sure the game runs smoothly — then they can look at refining those fine points.

All I say is, read the packet, play the game THEN fill out the survey and give constructive feedback.

Our job as playtesters is to play the game...NOT do the math, let the game designers worry about the math.

My group is just about done, which is sad.  

We've decided that with the direction that this game has been going, we'd rather take PF - convert some of the classes from 4e over that we really liked, create some "Kits" like the themes from 4e.   I might even pull some things from 2e.  

In playtesting we just find the game dull, nothing new from previous editions, not worth buying new books for when it's released.
 

Nov 22, 2012 -- 7:26AM, Scottevil912 wrote:

My group is just about done, which is sad.  

We've decided that with the direction that this game has been going, we'd rather take PF - convert some of the classes from 4e over that we really liked, create some "Kits" like the themes from 4e.   I might even pull some things from 2e.  

In playtesting we just find the game dull, nothing new from previous editions, not worth buying new books for when it's released.
 

This, right here, is very valuable feedback, IMO, although it could be more specific. Paying attention to the playtesters who are losing interest may help Next win back some of these people when the game is released.

Playtesting isn't for everyone.   It is not like playing an established campaign.  If people want to play an established campaign that's great, but that may not leave time to playtest.   

Also, we have to remember that each package that is issued is not WoTC making a statement that this is the way it is going to be.  Packages are testing out different ideas and options, which may be recombined or revised or completely discarded by the end.  There will be further options and ideas presented too.  We can't judge each package like it is a finished product, and negative response to specific items is really important especially if it is accompanied by constructive feedback. 

Personally, I have played every version of D&D over the past 30+ years.  I've enjoyed each iteration.  I like seeing bits and pieces of each version in these playtest packages, and I would love for WoTC to figure out how to entice more 4e fans to stick with the playtest process (even though I started to burn out on 4e after running my 2 year campaign).    

Nov 22, 2012 -- 7:39AM, Rhenny wrote:

Playtesting isn't for everyone.   It is not like playing an established campaign.  If people want to play an established campaign that's great, but that may not leave time to playtest.   

Also, we have to remember that each package that is issued is not WoTC making a statement that this is the way it is going to be.  Packages are testing out different ideas and options, which may be recombined or revised or completely discarded by the end.  There will be further options and ideas presented too.  We can't judge each package like it is a finished product, and negative response to specific items is really important especially if it is accompanied by constructive feedback. 

Personally, I have played every version of D&D over the past 30+ years.  I've enjoyed each iteration.  I like seeing bits and pieces of each version in these playtest packages, and I would love for WoTC to figure out how to entice more 4e fans to stick with the playtest process (even though I started to burn out on 4e after running my 2 year campaign).    

My group has been running a campaign with D&D Next, and it's worked out well so far (we're at fourth level). Personally, I believe it's one of the more valuable forms of playtesting, as it allows mechanics and options to be tested in an environment similar to that in which they will be used, over an extended period of time.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 6:59AM, Gwathir wrote:

Our job as playtesters is to play the game...NOT do the math, let the game designers worry about the math.

That´s one thing that makes it difficult to playtest. The math is so messed up you have to adjust it yourself, so what is the point? Monster accuracy vs character acuracy and HPs are not working. I know it´s a playtest, but they should have tested the math internaly to make it at least something closer to functional...

Nov 21, 2012 -- 11:56PM, faer4 wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:42PM, Diffan wrote:

Looking at the future of DDN has really made me give 4E a much harder look in terms of how far I can stretch the system to do things it wasn't really designed for. Example, Warhammer 40K with 4E.

Why not just play the one of the 40k RPGs by Fantasy Flight Games?

Right, but perhaps you missed the part of my post that mentioned not wanting to learn a whole new system? I'm sure FFG is great for what it does, but I just don't feel like investing in MORE books and then making my group learn the rules too.  

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:19AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Diffan wrote:

With open playtests, I'm sure this is encountered all the time. You have to expect people to only get the information, assimilate it in a vacuum, and respond accordingly based on math data instead of actual gameplay. I'd like to continue the Playtest with my group (well, up until the recent packet anyways) but 2 people have dropped out of our group temporarly. Nothing I can really do to stop this but it doesn't mean that our imput on how things look are any less valid than someone who's actually played the whole thing ALL the time. I don't have to use the playtest material to tell you that I don't like multiple classes getting Expertise Die.

You don't like the idea of multiple classes getting ED; if you haven't played each of them separately, you don't really know if they play the same at all.

It doesn't matter if I've played any or all of the classes. I thought each non-spellcasting class getting ED was a bit redundant. It's a fun system, (I did playtest the 2nd packet) and liked how it made the Fighter unique. I don't see that happening with the Rogue or Monk, espically now with Sneak Attack practically being butchered. It's also about perception. I get a HUGE list of maneuvers and some cross over, some don't. How about putting things into better categories so that I can assimiliate the information better, eh?
 

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:19AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Diffan wrote:

I don't have to playtest the info to tell you the Two-Weapon Fighting rules are just garbage (as of right now).

Okay, I'll give you this one; but, remember, the current TWF rules are designed for any character to use, not for a character that will specialize in TWF (or have it as a class feature - which I hope they avoid). I would like to see it a Specialty of its own.

We saw this with 3E and people will tell you it's called Feat traps and Concept taxes. By making TWF so horrible to the lay person, it's practically a non-choice compared to the other "styles". Why don't the other styles stink when people attempt them? No, TWF should be similiar to how it was in the 2nd packet without it requiring a feat. It has it's bonuses and drawbacks, just like everything else.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:19AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Diffan wrote:

I don't have to playtest the info to tell you how bad Alignment Requirements are to the overall system and general outlook for a game like D&D.

On the contrary, alignments (and flavorful benefits/detriments) are very good for the game; as long as they are optional for players that don't like them.

If a player chooses to accept them, that's cool. I shouldn't, however, be forced into them by the system.  

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:19AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Diffan wrote:

I don't have to playtest the Rogue to tell you that the maneuvers seem weak and aren't very solid when compared to the Fighter.

Seem is the key word here; I'm glad you've finally recognized that fact, about only reading the material and not actually playtesting it (at least for mechanics).

Sure, like I said I didn't play the "new" Rogue so I can only guess at the similarities of their maneuvers. Still, seems like a less-combatant Fighter that doesn't hold his own candle in a fight. But I've always seen rogues as Special OPs teams using stealth and suprise with a vital strike instead of a meatshield. I also don't like their Skill-Monkey shoehorning either.
  

Nov 22, 2012 -- 2:19AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Diffan wrote:

Basically, life isn't fair and never will be. There will be people (like myself) who've read over and over the playtest and see things that just don't interest me (like the magical items not having sell values) or anger me (like alignment restrictions) and will voice that over and over and over again until the books are printed. This is our one chance to help establish a game that has elements I like, and I'm going to push for those elements to be in the game. Wizards really only has one shot at this and it'd better be good coming out of the gates. I promised I'd give it 1 FULL year from release to put out info and supplements that support my style of play. But, if in that year, they produce the same old Tolkien-esque, old-school D&D feel of crap I've played before, I'm not going to buy it. No hard feelings. No complaining on the boards. No consistant BS from grognards and other stuff we 4E fans have had to suffer through EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 2008. I'd just quit and keep paying my DDI subscription so long as it relates to the online Character Builder and Compendium for 4E.

This is the type of thing that doesn't need to be playtested and can, therefore, be given quality feedback without playtesting.

Alignments should be easily ignored, but not excluded. Too many people like them and want them included.

I agree though, that they should not be irrevocably tied to strong mechanics; I think, for the sake of those of us who like alignment to have an effect, simple situational bonuses/penalties (benefits/detriments) should be enough.

Agreed with that. If you want strong mechanical implications for Mechanics, there should be rules (available in the DMG/PHB) to incorporate them. But making them the default assumption isn't the best way to go IMO.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 11:41AM, Diffan wrote:

I've been less than impressed with this edition so far. I see them take step forward (ie. Expertise Dice for Fighters) and then two steps back (ie. ED for everyone and alignment restrictions....just cuz'). I actually like flatter math and bounded accuracy as I don't think a +24 to attacks feels more powerful than a +8 to attacks. I'd like to see more lateral progression for character classes, not just bonuses and buffs all the time. I'd like to see some interesting options for ALL levels, not just the few first ones then crap every 3 or so levels later. I'd like to see the Rogue NOT be a skill-monkey. I'd like to see Alignment and alignment-based mechanics as optional, but not ingrained into the game. I'd like to see a multiclass system that doesn't base itself off of 3E's horrifying system of brokeness (as in, wins every encouter) to Broke (as in, cannot contribute due to sucky math).

However, I feel DDN is going down many of these paths because people like them, regardless if they're bad mechanics. People apparently are fine with silly or broken stuff. I really don't want to deal with it anymore. Perhaps DDN just isn't geared towards me, and that's fine. I won't be a D*%&#-bag and complain and harp and moan on the stuff I don't care for, unlike the multitudes of people that treated 4th the same. For the playtest, I'll give my feedback as loud as I can and hope that they see reason that a good amount of people actually enjoyed much of 4E's system and to dismiss them with the casualness that they're doing now, is a bid sad. When it's all said and done, they (WotC) can look back at this and tell themselves "Well, we gave the majority what they wanted." and hope that it keeps them afloat for a good long while. Luckily for me they can't come back and reclaim the 4E books (and v3.5 and Pathfinder) I have.  

Open any of your 4E books to the copyright page and skim down to the bottom. There should be a phrase that says something like "Unauthorized use it prohibited." or something like that.  They can legally take your right to use the book away at any time...

Nov 22, 2012 -- 8:33AM, Rupert_ADnD wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 6:59AM, Gwathir wrote:

Our job as playtesters is to play the game...NOT do the math, let the game designers worry about the math.

That´s one thing that makes it difficult to playtest. The math is so messed up you have to adjust it yourself, so what is the point? Monster accuracy vs character acuracy and HPs are not working. I know it´s a playtest, but they should have tested the math internaly to make it at least something closer to functional...

Yeah, if there's one thing Wizards needs, it's a math guy on the staff. Just someone to purely run numbers and nothing more.

I've been playing on and off since 2e. I like a lot of elements of each editions, but I suspect 5e will be my favorite.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 6:59AM, Gwathir wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 8:24PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Diffan wrote:

I'm with you Rupert. I haven't played the playtest since the 2nd packet debut. I showed them the changes for the latest one and I got a round of groans. Not only that but we're been on hiatus for the past 2 months. So when we get back together I don't foresee us going back to the playtest.

My concern...

I'm beginning to see more and more of this and it strikes me as not only odd, but dangerous, to the process.

I'm fairly certain there are folks out there with this same grumbly attitude, that still post regularly regarding this playtest process, and who also continue to respond to the surveys. Some of them, unlike at least the few of you here who admit it publicly, keep such an important fact to themselves.

Yet, they are not actually playtesting the system. How is that fair? Their "less tested" opinion (I originally wanted to say "ignorant", but that's too inflammatory, because I'm just trying to say they aren't developing any practical data, just theory and math spreadsheets calculated in a vacuum) is given as much weight as those of us actively playing this stuff and interested in giving critical feedback.

That's very unfortunate. I wonder if the occasional set-back some of us feel we've witnessed through this process of changes, was as a result of the devs getting hounded about something, not necessarily bad, but perceived as such by the grognardian theorists with a grudge against the system...

My thoughts as well. Getting allot of negative feedback from so called playtesters that arn't even playtesting lol.

Sometimes something looks bad on paper but works while some things look good on paper but are terrible in play.

For example, I see allot of complaints about 'dead levels', well, that doesn't effect actual in the moment gameplay nor how the system works. It just sucks for levelling and twitches at our obsessive compulsive minds. WOTC has even said that it isn't their focus yet, they just want to make sure the game runs smoothly — then they can look at refining those fine points.

All I say is, read the packet, play the game THEN fill out the survey and give constructive feedback.

Our job as playtesters is to play the game...NOT do the math, let the game designers worry about the math.

Dead levels don't require playtesting for me to know they're terrible. It's an entire level of "more of the same". Leveling needs to matter and be exciting. It is a lot longer than that one moment. Dead levels make gaining a level unimportant and boring.

Yes, but as was said, dead levels are not what they are testing at the moment. They know people don't like them. They understand they are an issue. But they are not essential to creating the core of the game and the mechanics to go with it. They are something to fix later.

It's a fair complaint - that Wotc could get more reflective data if they asked "how much have you play tested this packet and why".   You can argue that their data would be better or worse.  But, maybe I'm missing something, but I was one of the people who complained about dead levels before they made a statement that they'd fix it.  After that, I haven't seen any complaints about dead levels till now.  So, I'm not sure what your complaint is - that people shouldn't complain about things that Wotc will later warn are problems but will be fixed in future packets?   

As for me - I'm wishing that Wotc learned more from other systems.   I liked a lot about 4e and am enjoying FATE.   As the system is currently, I don't see myself dm-ing it, except as beer/pretzel gaming.    But, we'll see.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Youngy wrote:

Yes, but as was said, dead levels are not what they are testing at the moment. They know people don't like them. They understand they are an issue. But they are not essential to creating the core of the game and the mechanics to go with it. They are something to fix later.

I got tired of hearing "soon" from WotC back in the mid to late 4E days. Why would I believe them now?

Nov 23, 2012 -- 1:47PM, vegetakiller wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Youngy wrote:

Yes, but as was said, dead levels are not what they are testing at the moment. They know people don't like them. They understand they are an issue. But they are not essential to creating the core of the game and the mechanics to go with it. They are something to fix later.

I got tired of hearing "soon" from WotC back in the mid to late 4E days. Why would I believe them now?

+1

Nov 23, 2012 -- 1:47PM, vegetakiller wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Youngy wrote:

Yes, but as was said, dead levels are not what they are testing at the moment. They know people don't like them. They understand they are an issue. But they are not essential to creating the core of the game and the mechanics to go with it. They are something to fix later.

"soon"