Author Topic: D&D Next Open Playtest  (Read 2757 times)

Timeless Error

  • Ranger
  • Elite
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
  • Gender: Male
  • Emerald Knight
  • Typo Hammer Dev Team Problem Solver Eye of Seeing Ballot Box Dungeon Delver Art Aficionado
    • View Profile
    • Awards
D&D Next Open Playtest
« on: May 24, 2012, 03:09:50 PM »
The D&D Next Playtest came out today.  Who's seen it?  Who's tested it?  What are your thoughts?
Thanks to Aruius on GitP for creating my excellent avatar!

This space is dedicated to Nezzy, the noblest Roden of them all.  May he rest in peace and be undisturbed by toxic chemicals.

My Homebrew

--Timeless Error, Emerald Knight

Flickerdart

  • Bathtub Admiral
  • Administrator
  • Minion
  • *****
  • Posts: 91
  • Problem Solver RoC Staff
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: D&D Next Open Playtest
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2012, 03:56:47 PM »
Seen it. Not pleased. I'll reserve full judgment for after I play it, but at a glance it looks like the unholy offspring of 2e, 3e and 4e instead of doing any moving forward, dragging with it many of the problems and few of the advantages.

gralamin

  • Tactician
  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 64
  • Gender: Male
  • Sentient Construct
  • Typo Hammer Ballot Box Art Aficionado Capricorn
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: D&D Next Open Playtest
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2012, 12:05:04 AM »
I agree with Flickerdart's statements. I personally think its a huge step down from 4e.

gkathellar

  • Tactician
  • Global Moderator
  • Ace
  • *****
  • Posts: 610
  • Gender: Male
  • My right hand was thunder, and my left was stone
  • Scroll of Scribes RoC Staff Dungeon Delver Eye of Seeing Dev Team Art Aficionado Magic 8-Ball
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: D&D Next Open Playtest
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2012, 10:46:26 AM »
Thirded. The monster stat blocks looks like someone familiar with 4E tried to style things like 2E. Dropping feats is lame, but dropping skills is stupid — even 2E had its gawky little nonweapon proficiencies.

3E was wild, ridiculous and bizarre, but it had its merits and it taught us a lot about how tabletops work. Because of how much people learned from it, 4E was a slick, classy gentleman, even if it screwed up its numbers in a few places and it wasn't the game people were expecting. Obviously there's limited data to go on, but it seems like they've tossed out the lessons of 3E and 4E in some kind of poorly-founded effort to reclaim the "glory days."

I'm sure it'll be a decent game and people will enjoy it, but each time they do something stupid like Essentials or this they just hurt my interest more.  :-\
Seven is the Number of Legend.
This is my mod voice.

Geigan

  • Team Awesome
  • Elite
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Typo Hammer Dev Team Magic 8-Ball Ballot Box Eye of Seeing Art Aficionado
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: D&D Next Open Playtest
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2012, 11:36:31 PM »
Hey, maybe the feedback that they apparently want us to send will help change it into something at least recognizably ok.
Spoiler

Draz

  • Paladin
  • Elite
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
  • Typo Hammer
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: D&D Next Open Playtest
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2012, 01:23:09 PM »
People who have been playtesting Next seem to be having fun.  I'm sure it will be a decent game ... for the right playstyle.  But I'm having a hard time making my feelings for it go anywhere further than "meh."

It clings to too many sacred cows that I think have always been a hindrance to D&D: magic items that give numerical bonuses, the six ability scores, the hit points system.

In its quest to reclaim grognard players, it goes too far in saying "most tasks are resolved by ability checks, with DM fiat determining which ability scores can be appropriate in which situations."  I'm sorry, if that's how most of your rolls are resolved (or at least most of your non-combat rolls), then I'm having a hard time seeing why I should buy this game instead of using a free rules-light, DM-fiat-heavy system like Risus.

The thing that is being toted as the "innovative" mechanic of Next, Advantage/Disadvantage, is a good idea at its core but is being mishandled.  Rolling twice and using the better/worse result is a good mechanic, but it shouldn't be used to cover generic bonuses/penalties for pretty much any reason.  There are too many situations where a player may work hard to gain multiple advantages, then only enjoy one benefit due to the advantage system not "stacking."  Also, to toot my own horn (since I use a similar mechanic in a narrower set of situations in CRE8), since roll-twice-use-better-result is an easy mechanic to apply on-the-fly, it should be used for situations that get applied on-the-fly: modifiers that are truly situational, rather than modifiers that are a constant ability of a character.

D&D Next does have two innovative things going for it that can potentially still make it a valuable contribution to the RPG market.

The first is the "no-scaling numbers" idea.  A Level 18 character still has a reasonable chance to be hit by a Level 1 Orc, because attack bonuses and AC don't really change much as you go up in levels.  However, the Orc will do a piddly amount of damage, because the Level 18 character has 200+ hit points (since they're keeping the traditional HP mechanic, where high-level characters end up with obscene amounts).  Instead of attack bonuses scaling with level, DAMAGE bonuses will be all over the system.  This could be an interesting way to scale the game, if it's done right.

The other is the idea of "3e-style multiclassing, but where each class has an alternate less-frontloaded version of its class features progression written up, so that it can be multiclassed into in a balanced and fluid manner."  Sounds like a lot of work, but potentially an improvement on any multiclassing system I've seen in any class-based RPG.