|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 8:40AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
I have to ask, how is D&D Next appreciably like 3e, 3.5e, or PF? I just don't see it reflected in the mechanics other than a few instances (d20 system, fixed DCs, some skills), and a lot of the stuff that I see people cite also existed in pre-3e D&D.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 8:41AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Considering neophilia is what has eventually ruined every previous edition of D&D, it would be nice if they got off that treadmill and stuck to a simple product.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 8:45AM
#13
|
|
|
It's making many of the same mistakes as 3E
1. Assuming that per day based characters can be balanced against at will based characters
2. Saving throw DCs scale faster than saves
3. Weapon using classes don't scale compared to magic as levels progress
4. Higher levels an afterthought
...whatever
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:04AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
The classes, skills, feats, spells, 20 level progressions, races, ability scores, etc. feel exactly like 3rd edition to me. They have made some improvements but it does not feel remarkably different.
That is my opinion so it is neither right or wrong.
I don't feel a need to test play this edition. I can play it but I don't quite understand what I am really testing. It seems rather straightforward and nothing is remarkably new or unusual.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:22AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2006
|
The only thing I disagree with is 20 levels, that feels like every D&D to me
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:33AM
#16
|
|
|
Fighter) Went from 3.5 "d20 Attack" to all these interesting maneuvers.
What interesting maneuvers? All of the Fighter maneuvers are pretty boring, and are pretty similar to feats that the 3.5 fighter had available. The only difference is the 3.5 Fighter got access to more of them, and could make them synergize by using them together in ways the DDN fighter cannot due to the limitations of MDD.
Honestly DDN feels to me like they are cherry picking the worst aspects of every edition, culminating in a game that is so backwards that I can't convince my group to playtest the current packet even while it's free. And we're a 3.5 group, the edition that this game is trying to emulate the closest. They've simultaneously failed to fix the major problems we had with 3.5, while taking out many of the things that made it great.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:34AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
The only thing I disagree with is 20 levels, that feels like every D&D to me
1st and 2nd edition had a core of around 9 to 12 levels although progression was basically unlimited to some degree. 3rd edition went to 20 levels. 4th edition had 30 levels.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:39AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
The only thing I disagree with is 20 levels, that feels like every D&D to me
1st and 2nd edition had a core of around 9 to 12 levels although progression was basically unlimited to some degree. 3rd edition went to 20 levels. 4th edition had 30 levels.
uhhh all the player's handbook listings went to 20. You stopped rolling HP at 9 but carried on getting stuff until 20. The level progression was basically unlimited but the classes undoubtedly went to level 20.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:43AM
#19
|
|
|
People see what they want to see :P
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:47AM
#20
|
|
|
I see dead levels.
|
|
|
