For those who took part in the play testing, what is your overall opinion of the the proposed game system? Offer up a list of three pros, and three cons, regarding D&D 5E. Also, do you think there is anything particular within the 5E rules that could be used to represent something peculiar to Greyhawk? _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I was a part of the play test... did try to enlist my players, but alas, they looked a the first package and ran!! so mine will be from a DM perspective.... will work out the details your criteria outlines..... more to come..
DLG
PS.. this will make Joe happy to see a 5e slot on the forums
I got to play a game of the latest iteration of the D&D Next playtest rules at Dreamation, run by the RPGA. They were using a re-skinned Castle Greyhawk adventure from the 3.5 days (apparently there was an RPGA Greyhawk module of which I was unaware).
The module itself was kinda meh, but I did enjoy the game and it was interesting to see how it played with higher-level characters. We each had 11th level characters, and there were quite a few special abilities and such. They seemed designed to stack with one another, which led to some curious instances (like my character, a gnome thief, could pretty much move at triple speed at will, as long as he wasn't attacking).
I didn't see anything particularly Greyhawkian in the system itself, aside from the fact that it's level based. There's certainly room for lots of Greyhawkian flavor in some of the backgrounds and such - I'm just waiting for the playtest ban on derivative materials to be removed before I start posting that sort of stuff on my blog.
I admit I'm in the dark on 5th Edition, but I would love to know some of the basics at least. I'm a 2nd Edition adherent, but would be willing to check out the new edition if it moves closer to 1st/2nd Edition. I did read that 5th Edition was attempting to reconcile the various editions (an impossible task), but if it's anything like 3rd or 4th Edition I won't be as interested. Can anyone do a quick run down the basics of the game as far as what's new, improved, or going back to old school?
There are many hot topics concerning the next edition of D&D buzzing around the internet, primarily whether the latest design philosophy is good for the game or not. Based on playtests I have run over the past year, here are the high notes and my thoughts on them.
Bounded Accuracy: In a nutshell, bounded accuracy is an attempt to keep attack bonuses, skill bonuses, ACs and DCs from skyrocketing. For instance, attack bonuses still scale with level albeit at a much slower rate, to a maximum of +6 at 20th level. Likewise, monster armor classes are kept relatively low (you'll be hard pressed to find one with an AC over 20). Difficulty Class ranges anywhere from 0 to 30, with the average DC between 10 -20. All of this is done to avoid the treadmill effect of previous or Pathfinder editions, where the numbers climb relative to character level (e.g. the very same door that had a DC of 15 to break open at 1st level is DC 35 at 10th level.)
Personally, I like bounded accuracy. It keeps the numbers down and more manageable, its easier to assign appropriate DCs, maintains verisimilitude and the DM can still use low level monsters to threaten higher level parties - its no longer a foregone conclusion that a goblin must roll a natural 20 in order to hit that 12th level fighter's AC. Class abilities scale laterally rather than just numbers climbing vertically, resulting in a much more creative approach to the game.
Advantage/Disadvantage: This is a game mechanic that grants an extra roll of the d20, depending on circumstances. Advantage means you roll the d20 twice and take the higher of the two, while disadvantage means you take the lower roll. It can apply to attacks, saves, or skill checks and the result is simple, clean and intuitive. This eliminates the bookkeeping and math involved with various stacking bonuses in previous editions as well the constant need to consult the rules to clarify bonus types. I found it extremely easy and quick to use, allowing me to keep the game moving along and focus on narrative rather than numbers.
There are many other aspects of the game, suffice to say its a very streamlined approach in order to keep the rules crunch minimized and the fluff / fun stuff front and center. My players and I have really enjoyed the playtest, I expect we will move to 5e when it comes out. In a sense, it is a sort of "greatest hits" system that strives to embrace the best of all editions and while that may be a futile goal, the core mechanics are solid enough to provide the next best thing. One of the big features that the devs have not yet clearly shown is the modular design concept: a system that offers optional rule packets so DMs can customize their game to be as simple or complex as they want. I imagine this will be integral to the their design goals.
One thing I was glad to see ignored from previous editions were the magic item crafting rules, magic marts and wealth-by-level charts. For me, this killed much of the mystique of D&D so in many ways, their omission brought back much of the nostalgia I once had. So while the rules themselves may not necessarily be old-school, the decision to return to a simpler style of game is. The other big plus was backwards compatibility with 1st edition modules. I've been running the old Slavelords series with the playtest and there has been very little conversion work. Its been a blast.
On the downside, its sad to see the WotC is using the Forgotten Realms as their flagship campaign setting. No surprise really, it makes the most financial sense. At least in the past year we have seen a fair amount of GH love in the pages of Dungeon and some of the reprinted hardcovers. Perhaps that trend will continue.
I'm finally considering giving it more than a glance. I enjoyed playing 4e a great deal, and it is a breeze to DM, but just can't stand the sheer amount of time it takes to run an encounter. I had been working with modifying 4e rules to reduce this, but to do it on the scale I wanted to would require a massive reworking of the rules. I then started playing in a 2e campaign run by a friend and am having a blast with the simplicity of it, so I am considering just running my next campaign off of 2e rules, but there are still some things that I like about 4e that aren't in 2e. Starting to look again at Next, thinking this might be more what I'm looking for. We'll see.
I'm starting to get a bit more interested as release date approaches; to clarify, more interested as opposed to uninterested, which is where I've been for most of the playtest. For what it's worth I did play a few sessions using one of the sets of playtests rules but I came in for the final three sessions of an ongoing game and didn't really catch any sense of the game; it was very unfocussed and, well, a playtest basically. Which is my excuse for not posting 3 good or bad things; sorry, Ceb. I played a wizard and the game was mercifully back to the Vancian magic system as opposed to the "powers" approach of 4e. The Vancian system gets a rough ride from many but it's iconic D&D for all that. I did have the option of putting spells in a higher slot than their basic which uprated damage and other effects; not a startling innovation for sure.
Cards on the table, I really disliked 4e - great "game" but totally off my preferences in so many ways. 13th Age contains too many of the things I disliked about 4e despite it having some nice flavour and narrative touches.
So...5th. Might this get me back behind a D&D screen?
I've been in the playtest since the very beginning and have been fortunate enough to have some ongoing involvement with 5e.
I ran two I6 Ravenloft one-shots under the playtest. The first time was a TPK. The second time the PCs had a an item with a single charge of Sunburst. Things were going badly until they used it and vaporised Strahd... Also killing one of the PCs and putting several others at 0hp.
All in all both times were a blast!
Since then we have been running Next/5e for our Forgotten Realms game and have started a Greyhawk campaign... Where the PCs are now playing through the Temple Of Elemental Evil.
The system brings back the elemental of risk and the feel of danger, plus many other elements I loved from Moldvay/1e/2e D&D. But it brings a little robustness to the game and feels well balanced. The math seems pretty good too (I have looked at that pretty deeply).
I am utterly in love with the system and my players are very, very happy with it.
I don't like this whole short, long rest concept makes the game feel to much like you playing a video game.
Advantage/Disadvantage another rules that in principle is great but implies that no matter what the scenario you will always have the same mechanism of rolling two dice - so it makes no difference id you standing in the rain or underwater attempting the same thing ....
It also just feels dumbed down some what to me. What is a big concern for me is how soon will your PHB, DMG and MM become redundant WRT to the "living" document that they will continue to update? Does this mean that I will need to purchase a new core books every couple of months?
BUT I will reserve my final thoughts once I have seen the PHB and DMG.
I don't like this whole short, long rest concept makes the game feel to much like you playing a video game.
We like it quite a lot, but very few of my players are a pre-3.x heritage. You can simply remove the concept and make anything long-rest a "1/day".
The DMG will spend a lot of it's pages discussing how to modify subsystems like this for your own campaign.
DarkHerald wrote:
Advantage/Disadvantage another rules that in principle is great but implies that no matter what the scenario you will always have the same mechanism of rolling two dice - so it makes no difference id you standing in the rain or underwater attempting the same thing ....
IN play we have found it very natural. But again it's pretty straightforward to simply replace with static modifiers - that's exactly what earlier playtest versions did. I reckon that will be in the DMG too.
DarkHerald wrote:
It also just feels dumbed down some what to me. What is a big concern for me is how soon will your PHB, DMG and MM become redundant WRT to the "living" document that they will continue to update? Does this mean that I will need to purchase a new core books every couple of months?
According to WotC never. The proof will be in the puddin, tho.
DarkHerald wrote:
BUT I will reserve my final thoughts once I have seen the PHB and DMG.
Did I mention that you weren't alone on that one? ;-) lol
I work at Barnes and Noble, a few days ago the Community Relations manager asked me if I would like to run a demo game for the new D&D. They gave me the rules yesterday, I learned them over the night and ran my demo game today.
Advantages.
First off, the system is really simple. Its not really like any of the previous editions, but if I had to pick one that it most closely resembles, I'd have to go with Basic. The starter set I have, is something that reminds me a lot of the old Red Box, it has a trimmed down rule set, some basic starting characters, dice, and the starting module that comes with it has a very simple story line that isn't intended to be anything more then an introduction to the setting and teach the mechanics in a simple, easy to understand format.
They’ve also really fundamentally changed the saving throw system in 5e, and while this may not appeal to many older players, I personally really like it. It takes into account a much wider degree of possibility for things that one would need to defend from over the chaotic mess the original saving throw system was or even the oddly narrowed saving throw system used in 3.x.
The return of the Vancian magic system is another added bonus. Gone are the days of the power system like that was in 4e and that’s a huge added plus for me. Back to memorizing and praying for daily spells.
I also really liked the art work that was included in the box itself. I know that the success or failure of any game is going to be about more then just the pretty pictures that are included, but I also believe that its fair to say that it is a major factor. The 4e game didn’t seem to take itself seriously, the whole thing seemed drawn out of realm of over the top comic characters and manga. The art work seems more in line with the quality and feel of the Larry Elmore paintings from 2nd ed.
The next thing I can appreciate about it is that even though they seem to be sticking with the Realms for the official world, they at least appear to have rid themselves of the ridiculous crap they included in the 4e game. There was no mention of the spell plague, or the dragonborn or any of the other silliness that seemed to be endemic to the 4e game setting.
Lastly, for the most part combat has had some degree of lethality returned to it. Its not to the level of the 3.x games or prior, but it is far more likely that a player will pass from this mortal coil then in 4e, which seemed to take an act of congress to do so.
Disadvantages
I don’t really have much to say here, but I can say that I don’t much care for the advantages/disadvantages system. The additional die roll seems to detract from the drama a bit for me. I also don’t care for the fact that Halflings are pretty much never going to critically fail any roll they make due to the lucky trait.
While the jury is still out until the release of the PHB, DMG and MMI, all in all, I have to say that from what little I’ve seen I really liked the new system.
I've participated in the playtest, I've downloaded the Basic rules and thus far, I really like what I see (I've even pre-ordered the PHB).
The new edition is like if you took AD&D, cleaned it up and trimmed it a bit and then added the good parts from 3e and 4e, and sprinkled some new goodies on top. It's definitely D&D.
I'm pretty sure that everyone's going to find some aspect that they feel they'll have to houserule (because I'm no exception to that), but it seems to me to be the best edition for me to use as a foundation to build from than anything preceding. Of course, we'll see how things shape up when the PHB, MM and DMG are all released. I'm looking forward to seeing how the DMG shapes up (as it's supposed to be a "hacker's guide" for tinkering with the rest of the rules).
Regardless, unless something really goes amiss with the MM or DMG, it's what I'll likely be playing here on out. We just started a new 3.5 campaign after playtesting 5e. After our first session back to 3.5, my group decided that the next session will be with 5e. XD
I'm 43 and started on 1st edition. I really liked 3rd edition. It had some faults, but as a system it really let you be creative and was great for world creation. I still love the Prestige Class concept. It's probably true all the splat books got out of hand but I liked the system and thought it has a nice feel. The complexity was not a problem for me, nor would it be for most gamers I know, who are usually fairly smart people.
I thought 4th was an awful simplification aimed at the screenhead generation and I really didn't go for it. It also hurt D&D in general by polarising gamers into different camps. Bad for D&D then bad for me.
So I was very curious about the 5th edition and its long gestation period. Having digested most of the rules (but still waiting for the PHB) I am optimistic. I miss the tailoring and complexity of 3e but I think they seem to have achieved a good balance in 5e.
I am most happy that the massive power differential from 1st to 20th has been greatly reduced. I haven't heard anyone comment on magic items. Are they even in the PHB? Less reliance of those would also be a good thing.
While thinking about 5e rules it also occurred to me how much the rules and the setting are intertwined. Old D&D never had sorceror's, so there sudden appearance in 3e had an impact on Greyhawk. How do you retrospectively add an entire new class in the Greyhawk history?
I also read an interview with someone from WoC, (Mike Mearls I think) saying how he would love to do a Greyhawk Hardcover. I'm doubtful but amazed it was even mentioned, given the ridiculous complexities of Greyhawk licensing.
So my prediction is the 4e lot will be happy because 5e is still simple-ish, so I expect a very high percentage (90%) of the 4e fan based with move over. I've got a feeling most of the 3e fans (75%) will be won over as well. Pathfinder has done some great things extending on 3.5e and I think WoC will find it hard to win many of those fans over. Much depends on the game play experience. If I were WoC I would try updating campaign setting materials from a number of different settings to capture peoples interest in 5e. Regardless I think they look like they are on a winner and we can all pretend 4e was a bad dream (even though the warlock is still a core class - ick).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
