The (un)official D&D Next Playtest thread

[Xeviat]

X/day non-magical things are weird to me, but then again, I don't like daily anything. 2/day might as well be 1/encounter. Then again, as was pointed out to me by an oldschool gamer friend of mine, X/day allows you to blow everything on one fight if you have to. I just don't like that it lets you blow everything on one fight if you don't have to.

[Kindling]

So, people think WotC should focus on making a streamlined, elegant system rather than doing stuff a certain way "because it's DnD"?

It's a class-and-level system. It always will be, otherwise what appeal does it have over GURPS/BRP/SW/Whatever else? Class-and-level systems are not elegant. Okay, that's a gross generalisation, but I've never seen anything that doesn't have some degree of clunkiness to it while still being class-based.

The way I see it, the best they can do is try to make it fun. It's not going to be elegant, it's not going to be "realistic." But it might still be a blast to play. And I like rolling for HP.

That said I know basically nothing about the new DnD other than what you've all posted in this thread :P

[Weave]

So, people think WotC should focus on making a streamlined, elegant system rather than doing stuff a certain way "because it's DnD"?

It's a class-and-level system. It always will be, otherwise what appeal does it have over GURPS/BRP/SW/Whatever else? Class-and-level systems are not elegant. Okay, that's a gross generalisation, but I've never seen anything that doesn't have some degree of clunkiness to it while still being class-based.

The way I see it, the best they can do is try to make it fun. It's not going to be elegant, it's not going to be "realistic." But it might still be a blast to play. And I like rolling for HP.

That said I know basically nothing about the new DnD other than what you've all posted in this thread :P

Just because you and I have never seen a class and level system without some degree of clunkiness doesn't mean they shouldn't try ;). 4E did away with Vancian casting as a class and level system, so why take a step backwards and reincorporate it if not solely to appeal to the older masses? I get that WotC is a business and is looking to draw in different crowds, but when designing a system I'd hope they wouldn't constrain themselves to the "sacred cows" of D&D for the sake of appeal rather than system functionality.

What does look more promising is the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic, and, honestly, the removal of Base Attack Bonus, which only bogged things down at higher levels and made turns last way too long (especially when you've got those 6-armed demons with swords and whips and claws and junk, or in the case of anyone taking the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree).

You're absolutely right about making it fun. I'm harping on Vancian casting and Fighter dailys because they're the only real things I've seen thus far, but I don't think these, personally, would make or break 5E for me.

[sparkletwist]

Of course the idea is to make it fun.

However, to me (and quite a few others), a big part of that "fun" that the system can provide (as opposed to the GM, other players, setting, and such) is having an elegant system where the math makes sense. I understand there will always be some clunkiness to class/level systems, but if the game rules feel smooth and consistent, and each class brings some unique and hopefully numerically balanced offerings, I feel like that part of it will work out. So far, of course, that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Elemental_Elf]

Just because you and I have never seen a class and level system without some degree of clunkiness doesn't mean they shouldn't try ;). 4E did away with Vancian casting as a class and level system, so why take a step backwards and reincorporate it if not solely to appeal to the older masses? I get that WotC is a business and is looking to draw in different crowds, but when designing a system I'd hope they wouldn't constrain themselves to the "sacred cows" of D&D for the sake of appeal rather than system functionality.

Why take a step back? Because Pathfinder is the best selling RPG on the market right now. Regardless of how elegant and nice 4E was, it simply did not sell as well as D&D should have (i.e. being the sole, undisputed king of RPGs).

the removal of Base Attack Bonus, which only bogged things down at higher levels and made turns last way too long (especially when you've got those 6-armed demons with swords and whips and claws and junk, or in the case of anyone taking the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree).

BAB that grants additional attacks hasn't been a part of a WotC game since Star Wars Saga. Let me tell you, it is indeed a change for the best. All those extra attacks were so needless and, to a large extent, pointless.

[Kindling]

BAB that grants additional attacks hasn't been a part of a WotC game since Star Wars Saga. Let me tell you, it is indeed a change for the best. All those extra attacks were so needless and, to a large extent, pointless.

I remember reading somewhere (possibly on these very forums) someone once say something along the lines of "if you're rolling more than twice in for each character each round, it's too much"
I'm not sure I agree in every case, but I do think its a good guideline for basic "standard attack" type action resolution. Maybe if you're trying to pull off some crazy stunt or a more involved combat manoeuvre more than two throws of the dice is cool, but if you're just hitting stuff with other stuff, surely to-hit and to-damage or some kind of equivalent should be the end of it. . . 

[Elemental_Elf]

BAB that grants additional attacks hasn't been a part of a WotC game since Star Wars Saga. Let me tell you, it is indeed a change for the best. All those extra attacks were so needless and, to a large extent, pointless.

I remember reading somewhere (possibly on these very forums) someone once say something along the lines of "if you're rolling more than twice in for each character each round, it's too much"
I'm not sure I agree in every case, but I do think its a good guideline for basic "standard attack" type action resolution. Maybe if you're trying to pull off some crazy stunt or a more involved combat manoeuvre more than two throws of the dice is cool, but if you're just hitting stuff with other stuff, surely to-hit and to-damage or some kind of equivalent should be the end of it. . . 

I completely agree with the sentiment.

Rolling for more than 2 attacks a turn really slows the game down, especially if all the attacks have different bonuses.

In the Star Wars Saga game I run IRL, one of the Jedi has taken all of the feats necessary to have 4 really good attacks each and every turn. No one else in the party comes close to that many attacks. As a DM I often feel bad for the other characters who only have 1 or 2 attacks during combat. It feels like they receive less face time, which I think is a shame.

4E cures that problem by giving players many less options of attacking more than once per turn. The most common means around this restriction is to spend an action point (which are only gained after every other encounter) or choose a class that has ways of attacking twice (like the Ranger).

I, personally, believe each player at the table should be granted a certain amount of "screen time" per round of combat and that generally means the less rolling, the better.

[sparkletwist]

Hey, look at this.

The spell rules should look familiar to 3E fans. The big change here is in the spell description. We wanted something that was fun to read, so we decided to fall back on plain language rather than a formal stat block. You read through the spell and do what it says under its effect. That's it.

Fun to read!

Forget about having all the spell information available at a glance so that players and GMs could quickly grab the spell and know exactly what it did because all the mechanical information was right there. This is actually one thing 4e did semi-right, having the concise little statblocks for everything, but I guess it wasn't fun to read.

[beejazz]

So, people think WotC should focus on making a streamlined, elegant system rather than doing stuff a certain way "because it's DnD"?

I'd prefer that the baseline of D&D keep being D&D. Class and level, hitpoints without extra doo-dads, etc. all make sense for D&D. My highest priorities be that D&D be easy to learn and play right away, and that it should be easy to extend the game and use it for whatever.

If I want something more realistic, more tactical, or to emulate some specific sub-genre of fantasy, that stuff is out there.

That said I've got high hopes for the "modular" approach if they can pull it off right.

[Elemental_Elf]

Hey, look at this.

The spell rules should look familiar to 3E fans. The big change here is in the spell description. We wanted something that was fun to read, so we decided to fall back on plain language rather than a formal stat block. You read through the spell and do what it says under its effect. That's it.

Fun to read!

Forget about having all the spell information available at a glance so that players and GMs could quickly grab the spell and know exactly what it did because all the mechanical information was right there. This is actually one thing 4e did semi-right, having the concise little statblocks for everything, but I guess it wasn't fun to read.

I would prefer it if spell effects were short and there was a separation between the effect and the description. However, I can tell you from experience, people *hate* that. They want everything to be blended together or else the fantasy doesn't feel real.

[sparkletwist]

I can tell you from experience, people *hate* that. They want everything to be blended together or else the fantasy doesn't feel real.

Why? This makes no sense to me.
I'm not saying get rid of the fluff. I'm just saying that it's probably good if there's some sort of statblock that gives the crunch at a glance, so when a player is trying to pick what spell to cast, or has actually cast it and the DM needs to quickly be reminded how it works, all the pertinent mechanical information is right there. How is that not a plus?

[LordVreeg]

So, people think WotC should focus on making a streamlined, elegant system rather than doing stuff a certain way "because it's DnD"?

I'd prefer that the baseline of D&D keep being D&D. Class and level, hitpoints without extra doo-dads, etc. all make sense for D&D. My highest priorities be that D&D be easy to learn and play right away, and that it should be easy to extend the game and use it for whatever.

If I want something more realistic, more tactical, or to emulate some specific sub-genre of fantasy, that stuff is out there.

That said I've got high hopes for the "modular" approach if they can pull it off right.

I'm in a similar place.   I don't need d&d to be other games.

And I also hope they do create a very baseline version with add on options to 'create' d&d with different foci.

[Elemental_Elf]

I can tell you from experience, people *hate* that. They want everything to be blended together or else the fantasy doesn't feel real.

Why? This makes no sense to me.
I'm not saying get rid of the fluff. I'm just saying that it's probably good if there's some sort of statblock that gives the crunch at a glance, so when a player is trying to pick what spell to cast, or has actually cast it and the DM needs to quickly be reminded how it works, all the pertinent mechanical information is right there. How is that not a plus?

If I understood the complaint, I would explain it... People I talk to absolutely hate the way 4E handled spells. They said there was no flavor text (even though there was) and the effect text was "boring to read." I really don't understand the complaint but apparently enough people felt that there was a problem and WotC is now correcting it.

[Xeviat]

I can tell you from experience, people *hate* that. They want everything to be blended together or else the fantasy doesn't feel real.

Why? This makes no sense to me.
I'm not saying get rid of the fluff. I'm just saying that it's probably good if there's some sort of statblock that gives the crunch at a glance, so when a player is trying to pick what spell to cast, or has actually cast it and the DM needs to quickly be reminded how it works, all the pertinent mechanical information is right there. How is that not a plus?

If I understood the complaint, I would explain it... People I talk to absolutely hate the way 4E handled spells. They said there was no flavor text (even though there was) and the effect text was "boring to read." I really don't understand the complaint but apparently enough people felt that there was a problem and WotC is now correcting it.

I did find reading the 4EPHBs to be boring, but ... I didn't have to slog through a class's spells to read the class and get an idea of the class in 3E. I could read the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard and get an idea for the class without reading through their spells. In fact, it was many moons later that I actually read through the entirety of the spell descriptions: I only read those we needed, and I loved the spell lists with their quick descriptions.

I think a fair compromise would be to have the flavor text at the top of a 4E style spell card go into the kind of detail that the 3E/5E spells do, then have a block for the rules text at the bottom. I thought the 3E spells were well written enough, but they did cause far more debates at the table than 4E spells did.

[sparkletwist]

I guess the reason this bothers me so much is that the approach they're taking to the spell system seems to be a microcosm for the approach they're taking to the design of the system in general. So far, it doesn't seem to have any clearly-defined system for skill use or performing combat maneuvers. Instead, the players and the DM are basically encouraged to just make some stuff up. It replicates the 4e problem of out-of-combat actions being rather loosely defined. Again... just make some stuff up. Now, they're talking like they want to dispense with statblocks for spells, which I find hard to believe won't lead to them being more ill-defined, and lead to more making stuff up.

Now, I'm not opposed to making stuff up, to a point-- it is the point of playing an RPG after all. But, if at every turn, the game just says "make some stuff up," then why bother with written rules at all? You can just make stuff up. And no, having a rulebook that's "fun to read" doesn't matter if it doesn't actually tell you how to adjudicate anything.