|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:51AM
#11
|
|
|
As a DM, I've never understood why this was hard to begin with. I'm currently playing through a Pathfinder adventure path using the 4th edition of D&D set in 3.5 Eberron. After the 4e campaign set in 2e Dark Sun.
It really depends on how much time you have to convert. When I was a teen, through college age it was easy enough to do because I had more time than I knew what to do with. Now, time is scarce and running pre-written material is a way of still being able to table a great campaign without all the time consuming work. If the conversion takes almost as much time as just writing new material then the pre-written stuff isn't as appealing. Next currently looks enough like 1e, and 2e AD&D to make coverting those materials a snap. 3e and 4e...not so much.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:55AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
As a DM, I've never understood why this was hard to begin with. I'm currently playing through a Pathfinder adventure path using the 4th edition of D&D set in 3.5 Eberron. After the 4e campaign set in 2e Dark Sun.
It really depends on how much time you have to convert. When I was a teen, through college age it was easy enough to do because I had more time than I knew what to do with. Now, time is scarce and running pre-written material is a way of still being able to table a great campaign without all the time consuming work. If the conversion takes almost as much time as just writing new material then the pre-written stuff isn't as appealing. Next currently looks enough like 1e, and 2e AD&D to make coverting those materials a snap. 3e and 4e...not so much.
Yep, and easy to drop stuff from 1st/2nd Ed into 5th Ed (actually, not just 1st/2nd, you can drop in 3rd Ed classes like the Incarnate almost whole-cloth).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 11:13AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
... And it shouldn't be too hard to use old adventures and modules with the new rules.
As a DM, I've never understood why this was hard to begin with. I'm currently playing through a Pathfinder adventure path using the 4th edition of D&D set in 3.5 Eberron. After the 4e campaign set in 2e Dark Sun.
Converting THAC0 to d20; PPD/PP/RSW/Br/Sp saves to Fort, Ref, and Will; and AC from -10 to 34 -- or the other way around -- without causing a train wreck.
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 11:21AM
#14
|
|
|
I have to say I'm always surprised by the 2e/3e fans who ask why they'd want to play Next. 4e fans I kind of get, because it doesn't look like Next will have the rigid balance or tactical complexity of 4e... but it seems to me like 5e has the promise of having pretty much ALL the major features of, say, 3e without many of the drawbacks.
I'll confine myself to 3e since that's the system I'm most familiar with. Why play Next over 3e?
1. Martial classes and spellcasters are already more balanced at high levels.
2. Fighters and rogues have more interesting and unique abilities.
3. The removal of class skill lists opens up more character possibilities.
4. Feats are more meaningful, enhancing character creation options.
5. The monk isn't a joke.
6. The core combat rules are simplified and streamlined, without losing many tactical options. (Example: attacks of opportunity.)
7. Differences in saves are gone and differences in BAB are minimal, so multiclassing will (or should) be much more viable.
8. Built-in kits (deity/domains, wizard traditions, rogue schemes, etc) add more built-in variety to the classes.
9. From the DM side, monster stat blocks are easier to read and more dynamic.
10. The focus on ability checks as a core mechanic enables easier improvisation.
11. Bounded accuracy (when it comes to skills) encourages characters to attempt more tasks outside their "comfort zones." (That is, there isn't a 20-point disparity between the Diplomacy check of a tenth-level fighter and bard, so the fighter might still try to act charming now and then.)
I could keep going, but yeah. The downside? Well, obviously there isn't nearly as much material out there for 5e as there is for 3e/d20, and there's still new stuff to learn, and everything is in flux since it's a playtest (so there might be some "dealbreaker" lurking in the shadows ready to ruin the final version for you.)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 11:31AM
#15
|
|
|
Because DDN is going to be the way new players are introduced to the game. I like that very muchly. I think the new edition beats all previous editions hands down in terms of how easy it's going to be to teach to incoming players, new to the TTRPG experience. If you have a prior edition you prefer, by all means, go have fun with it.
This pretty much nails it. D&D is really unique in that it's a brand name everyone knows and WoTC has an awesome relationship with stores and putting together events for newbies. And the newbie experience for D&D probably peaked in the early 80's with the Moldvay/Mentzer editions of Basic D&D. I'd be willing to bet there was a bit of a shock for some people at Wizards when they went back and replayed these editions in just how quick and easy it was to play D&D back then.
I can see those elements(quick and easy) in DDN and even if you're not into DDN itself, you should think of it as a gateway drug to get more people into the hobby. And as a bonus it seems like WoTC is commited to bringing back the old versions of D&D products too. So you'll be able to buy old 2e material and play it at the table under 2e or DDN.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 11:34AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
D&DN will have ess options than 3.5 and I think people have houseruled 3.5 into something playable so RAW balance issue is not a concern.
I'm currently rewritig part of PF and alot of the thing in D&DN I do like can easily be addd to 3.XYZ. The concentration mechanic and words of power for example fix the 3.5 cleric if you change a few spells around. 3rd ed is inherently modular so you can rip out parts of it you do not like and add parts from D&DN and 4th ed and SWSE.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 11:54AM
#17
|
|
|
D&DN will have ess options than 3.5 and I think people have houseruled 3.5 into something playable so RAW balance issue is not a concern.
I'm currently rewritig part of PF and alot of the thing in D&DN I do like can easily be addd to 3.XYZ. The concentration mechanic and words of power for example fix the 3.5 cleric if you change a few spells around. 3rd ed is inherently modular so you can rip out parts of it you do not like and add parts from D&DN and 4th ed and SWSE.
I can see some parts of Next working as patches for 3.5, but there are some major core parts of 3.5 that are problematic (BAB, iterative attacks, and the skill system spring to mind.) With the amount of work it'd take to houserule that stuff into shape, and teach it to your group, you could much more easily buy and learn the rules for Next, which would probably be a lot simpler and less slapped-together.
And if that's your deal, Next is MORE modular than 3e, I'd argue.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 11:58AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
D&DN will have ess options than 3.5 and I think people have houseruled 3.5 into something playable so RAW balance issue is not a concern.
I'm currently rewritig part of PF and alot of the thing in D&DN I do like can easily be addd to 3.XYZ. The concentration mechanic and words of power for example fix the 3.5 cleric if you change a few spells around. 3rd ed is inherently modular so you can rip out parts of it you do not like and add parts from D&DN and 4th ed and SWSE.
I can see some parts of Next working as patches for 3.5, but there are some major core parts of 3.5 that are problematic (BAB, iterative attacks, and the skill system spring to mind.) With the amount of work it'd take to houserule that stuff into shape, and teach it to your group, you could much more easily buy and learn the rules for Next, which would probably be a lot simpler and less slapped-together.
And if that's your deal, Next is MORE modular than 3e, I'd argue.
Yes, that is the big seller for me: ease of converting/porting over stuff from other editions (or SWSE) into 5th Ed.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 12:01PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I can understand people not liking BAB, iterative attacks, and the skill system but they are not fundamentally unworkable. Pathfinder has a better skill system than 3.5 een though is similar so yo can port that in or you can use SWSE skills if you want. BAB works well, iterative attacks not so much but once agian you can use SWSE BAB instead if you want. Even RAW though they are not the major problems 3.5 has which is CoDzilla.
There are plenty of d20 based games you can import material from into 3.5. Pathfinder may be a dirty word here for some but its actually grown way beyond PF by itself. One of the new PF things has a kick starter going for it and it as Frank Metzer on board. D&DN isn't competing with PF for sales its going to be competing with d20. In 3rd ed most 3rd PP were garbage, now their work is roughly on par with WoTC better in some cases/ways.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 12:07PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I can understand people not liking BAB, iterative attacks, and the skill system but they are not fundamentally unworkable. Pathfinder has a better skill system than 3.5 een though is similar so yo can port that in or you can use SWSE skills if you want. BAB works well, iterative attacks not so much but once agian you can use SWSE BAB instead if you want. Even RAW though they are not the major problems 3.5 has which is CoDzilla.
There are plenty of d20 based games you can import material from into 3.5. Pathfinder may be a dirty word here for some but its actually grown way beyond PF by itself. One of the new PF things has a kick starter going for it and it as Frank Metzer on board. D&DN isn't competing with PF for sales its going to be competing with d20. In 3rd ed most 3rd PP were garbage, now their work is roughly on par with WoTC better in some cases/ways.
I would rather just stick and, give feedback about D&DN, and then buy into that... if, of course, it continues to develop into something I really want to play. So far so good though!
|
|
|
