Dungeons & Dragons 5e playtests

[Ryong]

So, I didn't play a lot of 3.5 'cause of skills with weird intervals ( like hey my perception is 1.5 or some shit ), generally magical bullshit and a lot of classes basically just hitting stuff over and over and then doing something different sometimes - like a warrior just slashing a wolf and oh I can cleave now whatever.

I like 4e and play it as I've mentioned here before, because it adds a lot of variety to most classes while keeping any magical classes stay like they were before, not to mention the mark mechanic a lot of classes have is nice.

So here comes 5e and it does away with the multiple defenses 4e had and opportunity attacks, adds spell slots back in and removes the ability variety on non-mages. Also, ugh, hit dice.

To be fair, I like the return of cone and line area of effects and find the finesse weapon thing nice.

Thoughts? Anyone doing a playtest?

[Locke cole]

I don't think I'm going to really do 5e until I finish this homebrew 4e class I'm working on. I'm not about to throw away 3 years of procrastination now.

On that note, isn't 5e coming out really fast? Did 3e get replaced this fast?

[Ryong]

...What're you talking about?

[Bells]

yeah i still think it's the wrong approach... it's just too fast. Every core set rules is going to have problems, holes and issues in them... instead of infinite padding and gimmicky nonsensical bullshit, they should release a workable, solid base of rules set and them work on options, content and lore...

as far as people have been rolling dice they've been ok with tweaking the rules and adapting to their own table, and it gets better the more options they are given to work with... by recycling everything over and over they are just segregating their playbase... afterall, all those books aren't exactly super cheap.

I'm pretty sure a lot of 4e early adopters are going to give 5e the cold shoulder, just like the 3e crowd did with 4e

[Locke cole]

...What're you talking about?

Oh, just kind of muttering. Half to myself. For a few years now, I've been "working" on a homebrew base class for 4E. I don't think I need to even tell you how much of an endeavor that is. Much more than in 3E, for certain. So, I'm a little bit annoyed that I started hearing about 5E when I finally started making some real, tangible progress on the thing.

I mean, that part's my problem, not anyone else's, (I certainly never mentioned it here) but it does occur to me that the change is happening rather fast this time.

[Ryong]

Oh, oh okay I was being crazy.

You're talking about 4e getting replaced, okay, yeah.

It does seem kind of fast and I'm honestly surprised we haven't seen some things yet on 4e - like a book of eastern content.

4e managed to streamline classes while giving them variety. 5e seems to be keeping some streamlining while getting rid of the variety for like half of the classes.

[BitVyper]

Oh man, I can't wait for 5e. Specifically, I can't wait for 5e vs 4e flamewars.

Also 4e can eat a dick.

[Locke cole]

Well, it can, but that ritual takes an hour.

[Meister]

Oh man, I can't wait for 5e. Specifically, I can't wait for 5e vs 4e flamewars.

Also 4e can eat a dick.
Can't wait so badly you want to start one? That's new.

Terrible playtest, terrible design decisions. They took the worst parts from 3.5 and earlier editions, and everything good they took from 4E, which isn't much to begin with, is obfuscated in awful writing for no good reason. I'm not interested in playing or running it at all. 4E desperately needs some improvements, but they opted for active regression. The driving force behind this isn't the desire to design a good game, it's an attempt to cash in on nostalgia. They've even said as much in their marketing blog entries.

e: 5e can only eat dicks if you specifically tell the DM how you do it. If your description does not meet his expectations all dicks stay uneaten. The Fighter may only eat 1d4-1 dicks once per day, the Wizard gets a cantrip.

[Meister]

I mean I guess it's going to be a really good ruleset for the kind of game where you traipse around a dungeon, agonizing over every use of your healer's kit, always wary of possible kobolds around the corner, trying to avoid fights wherever possible, are positively elated about finding a healing potion, and regularly have to outwit the DM.

It's just I'd rather spend my saturday evenings funneling iron filings into my urethra.

[Toast]

To be fair, this is an alpha playtest where the options available were specifically chosen to be tested. The characters are pre-generated, the skill system is mostly non-existent, and the fighter has basically nothing to do but whack people.

Given that we probably haven't seen the breadth of spells, backgrounds, and themes available, let alone feats, I'm ok with keeping an open mind about how this will turn out. We also haven't seen a lot of the background mechanics, such as how to calculate bab, how number of spells and cantrips/orisons works, etc.

There's already some issues that are apparent just from reading through what is in the playtest. Sleep has no duration, ray of frost seems incredibly powerful for a low-level at will ability. You can automatically charm people by beating them down to 10hp or less. There doesn't seem to be any reason to use heavy armor unless you have a negative dex modifier or are a dwarf.

Those are things that I would houserule anyway. At first glance, the system seems very modular, and I like that because that's how I played AD&D (which was the last incarnation I played, not counting the pc games).

There doesn't seem to be quite the numbers bloat that 3.x had, which I like. There does seem to be a lot of extra dice rolling (advantage/disadvantage, poison, etc.) that could slow the game down a lot. Though it is difficult to tell at this point, character progression seems a lot flatter than previously, which is something that I personally like. I also like saves being based off ability scores, as I think that encourages more balanced stat distributions rather than min-maxing.

[CABAL49]

Crossclassing in 4e is dumb.

[Locke cole]

Poorly implemented, or a bad idea?

If the latter, I'm not sure. I mean, you can't get nearly the kind of blending you can get in 3.5, but if you want a different Paragon path, it can be useful.

...I question the logic in trying to cash in on 3.5 nostalgia when Pathfinder exists.

I'm not saying 5e is bad; I can't, since I haven't seen any of it. What I'm saying is that guys who really just want 3.5 again already have that.

[Meister]

Crossclassing in 4e is dumb.
Which do you mean, multiclassing or hybrids? I always thought multiclassing was rather elegant. In theory and before they threw thousands of additional feats at the system, anyway. Granted, on the one hand I never saw anyone take any multiclassing feats beyond the first one, or treat that one as anything other than "Skill Training with something on top for the same prize as Skill Training", on the other people I know usually got everything they wanted out of a character from one class (and one of those feats).

Come to think of it, only one of my four regular players hasn't picked up one.

Never saw hybrids in action but my understanding was always that they're a very experimental, use-at-own-risk concept.

[tacticslion]

I'm going to reference the Pathfinder Alpha a very great deal, because really, that's what an alpha should be. I mean, their Alpha kind of sucked as a game, too, but as an alpha, it was handled pretty much exactly correctly.

Anyway, fair warning.

To be fair, this is an alpha playtest where the options available were specifically chosen to be tested. The characters are pre-generated, the skill system is mostly non-existent, and the fighter has basically nothing to do but whack people.

Given that we probably haven't seen the breadth of spells, backgrounds, and themes available, let alone feats, I'm ok with keeping an open mind about how this will turn out. We also haven't seen a lot of the background mechanics, such as how to calculate bab, how number of spells and cantrips/orisons works, etc.

This is probably the worst thing they could do with an alpha, and, quite frankly, smacks of many of the exact same mistakes 4E made when it first came out and the way the articles and polls in Legends and Lore have barely improved on it.

This is not the way to run an alpha. You don't cherry-pick, show off some things, and receive feedback only on the things you ask for feedback on. 4E came with a huge backlash for pretty much that exact reason: they change everything, took zero feedback, and when you sent them questions the way they asked you to send them questions about rule sets they hadn't explained, they told you (or at least me) what amounts to, "Shut up, we're right, you don't know." which left me without any answers and no idea what I did "wrong" to receive such a response.

Now they're changing everything, taking only the feedback they want to get, and ignoring the rest. This is very little improvement.

Compare Pathfinder: their alpha was basically, "Hey, here's a potential Core Rulebook in its entirety, take a look, tell us what you think, send feedback." By the time Beta came around, rather large changes were made, and once the final arrived, it looked very different in most respects from the Alpha. But never once did they cherry-pick anything in their development/feedback process: they just explained "here's what we're thinking the whole thing looks like now, let us know".

From what you're saying here, WotC is going, "Here's some very specific combat things to stir nostalgia for those combat things, don't worry, we'll take care of the rest." which isn't really anything like what a good alpha should be. I mean, the alpha doesn't have to be anything at all like the final product (PF's sure wasn't), but you can't get good or accurate feedback

There's already some issues that are apparent just from reading through what is in the playtest. Sleep has no duration, ray of frost seems incredibly powerful for a low-level at will ability. You can automatically charm people by beating them down to 10hp or less. There doesn't seem to be any reason to use heavy armor unless you have a negative dex modifier or are a dwarf.

This stuff? The exact stuff that was covered in the PF alpha. Covered and feedback requested. They really wanted to make sure they had their rules down first as a baseline to get good feedback on.

Now, I'm not going to say that 5E will "suck", because I haven't actually played the alpha. I've just been burned repeatedly by WotC, and see the exact same patterns of failure crop up again.

Which do you mean, multiclassing or hybrids? I always thought multiclassing was rather elegant. In theory and before they threw thousands of additional feats at the system, anyway. Granted, on the one hand I never saw anyone take any multiclassing feats beyond the first one, or treat that one as anything other than "Skill Training with something on top for the same prize as Skill Training", on the other people I know usually got everything they wanted out of a character from one class (and one of those feats).

Which is one of the fundamental problems with the multi-classing system, really. I mean, a feat can grant me skill training, or it can grant me skill-training and some nifty stuff!

Another problem I've had with 4E multiclassing is very similar to the one I had with 3.5 Multiclassing: the pointless taxes they imposed. Why a feat-tax/skill-based tie-in? Why are the options so regulated (encounter/utility/daily; specific-skill; etc)?

It was very strange for me to be a cleric-warlock hybrid and have, like, three warlock-things (and the expended feats to prove it!), but otherwise be a cleric. The second class felt "tacked on". While 3.X Prestige Classes had their problems, one of their best traits was their ability to synchronize two choices (such as the Mystic Theurge)*. 4E really doesn't grant that: paragon paths work okay in my experience, for creating that feeling (about the same as 3.X Prestige Classes, really), but it's still somewhat lacking, and it suffers the same problems as 3.X: you don't really feel like you're both things until substantially later in your career.

Don't get me wrong. It can still be pretty cool. It just often isn't in practice, and doing so tends to make the entire power-system look quite shallow and one-note.

Come to think of it, only one of my four regular players hasn't picked up one.

Never saw hybrids in action but my understanding was always that they're a very experimental, use-at-own-risk concept.

Which is really a terrible way to publish a Final Product (though a great way to run an Alpha on that product)

Hybrids were, quite frankly, awful. I've built them, looked at them very, very carefully, run playtests with them, and found all of them I tried pretty inferior in every way (with the exception of one lightly over-powered build, which really didn't change much of the group dynamic, because many 4E characters tend to be superheroes out-of-the-box anyway). System mastery becomes an absolute must to make a workable character, and the options that are granted those that take them are inferior in most every way for the sake of "balance", which... well, which doesn't work. It really feels like they went, "Hey, let's just throw this thing out here for those whiny people that weren't satisfied: also, now we don't have to make psionic rituals, due to extra filler!"**

It's just really unsatisfying, and feels like a very lazy and ill-thought-out failed pandering to a specific Fanbase***. (Kind of like the magic missile errata, really. ... also kind of like the 5E design decisions I've been seeing lately.****)

And, I mean, the hybrid system should have been the answer to the "I want to feel both" concept. It just... wasn't.

* The other two were: to become a super-specialized awesome-in-a-specific-field, and to enable an otherwise-strange-character concept. Still took too long.

** Rituals: still very confusing choices, even after all this time. I mean, it seems so odd that Simulacrum would be a Daily Power, rather than a ritual. Alchemy? A different form of Ritual-Replacement-System. Why would anyone want to spend so much and take so long to look at a small scene for an amount of time dwarfed by the amount of time it took to cast the dang thing?! Why is "necromancy" relegated to "whatever the GM wants"?!? And Circle Magic: WAT HAPPEN?!?! ARG!
...
... sorry. Um, so anyway, I kind of disagree with the over-all design and decisions of rituals in 4E.

*** Like me. It really feels like they were published just for my kind of player who wants to like WotC, disagrees with many of their design decisions, was a fan of 3.X, and keeps coming up frustrated. Hey: they failed. Again.

**** BOOM-baby! Aaaaaaaaand we're back on topic!

[Whomper]

One day I'll be able to play Dungeons & Dragons... /emo

[Locke cole]

You know what would be nice for Rituals? If there was a feat that let you prepare a ritual ahead of time, and then "finish" it later, so it didn't take 10 minutes to do Comprehend Languages: you could just prepare it earlier on, and take a round use it if you needed to later in the day. If you had to use it or lose it by the end of the day, and had to use the materials either way, it'd still be decently balanced.

[BitVyper]

As I recall, that's how magic basically works in the Amber books. You spend time weaving a spell together, then leave a few key elements of it "hanging" for later activation.

[Locke cole]

Ah, cool. I figured there was something out there that had already done it. I wonder what sort of feat it would take to be balanced?

Probably Paragon-level.

[Meister]

Have a playtest log. (http://almostpopculture.com/5e-playtest-log/)

At one point there are 18 rats. With no swarm rules, each rat gets its own attack roll, and they have advantage. That makes 36 rolls. Each rat does 1 point of damage. The wizard ends it single-handedly.

Game design of the genre's most well-known brand in 2012.

[Locke cole]

“Prithee,” says Zomuel, for he is a prissy high elf, “these caves are chaotic as shit.”

I want to play with Zomuel.

edit: I tmay be the lack of options in the playtest (or just the constant ribbing of Jim going on coloring my perception of it all), but I am not liking the apparent lack of options for the fighter. One of the things I liked about 4E was that they gave everyone, even martial classes, options out the wazoo that weren't just "hit it".

[Ryong]

I want to play with Zomuel.

edit: I tmay be the lack of options in the playtest (or just the constant ribbing of Jim going on coloring my perception of it all), but I am not liking the apparent lack of options for the fighter. One of the things I liked about 4E was that they gave everyone, even martial classes, options out the wazoo that weren't just "hit it".

Nostalgic, right?

[Locke cole]

I was sort of feeling better about the fighter when they said that he's using a build that lets him damage stuff even on a miss, until they then mentioned that Wizards can do the same thing.

[TDK]

I started playing dnd with 3.5 and thought it was great, until I played 2e and realized that 3.5 is kinda shit. 4 is just...awful.

2 is where its at, though. Good stuff.

[Toast]

This is not the way to run an alpha. You don't cherry-pick, show off some things, and receive feedback only on the things you ask for feedback on.

Compare Pathfinder: their alpha was basically, "Hey, here's a potential Core Rulebook in its entirety, take a look, tell us what you think, send feedback." By the time Beta came around, rather large changes were made, and once the final arrived, it looked very different in most respects from the Alpha. But never once did they cherry-pick anything in their development/feedback process: they just explained "here's what we're thinking the whole thing looks like now, let us know".

I think it would be preferable to have the entire alpha rules to look over and playtest, I'm not disagreeing with you. However, if 5e is going to be as modular as they say, I can see the benefit of taking a more focused look at what amounts to the bare bones basics before they start adding layers of complexity.


From what you're saying here, WotC is going, "Here's some very specific combat things to stir nostalgia for those combat things, don't worry, we'll take care of the rest." which isn't really anything like what a good alpha should be. I mean, the alpha doesn't have to be anything at all like the final product (PF's sure wasn't), but you can't get good or accurate feedback

I don't get that vibe at all. Also, I was under the impression that there would be several of these playtests, each one expanding on the rules. If that's the case, then I don't consider this the alpha, but rather the first alpha.


edit: I tmay be the lack of options in the playtest (or just the constant ribbing of Jim going on coloring my perception of it all), but I am not liking the apparent lack of options for the fighter. One of the things I liked about 4E was that they gave everyone, even martial classes, options out the wazoo that weren't just "hit it".

Yeah, the fighter definitely needs more things to do, but from what I understand they made him deliberately the most straightforward, easiest to play. Not entirely sure why, as the kind of player who wants to do nothing but whack at things has got to be a small minority.

[Meister]

2 is where its at, though. Good stuff.
Has Wizards of the Coast got a deal for you!

[tacticslion]

I think it would be preferable to have the entire alpha rules to look over and playtest, I'm not disagreeing with you. However, if 5e is going to be as modular as they say, I can see the benefit of taking a more focused look at what amounts to the bare bones basics before they start adding layers of complexity.

... eh. It has some merits, but it's not investing me with confidence. It simply looks like "more of the same" in their decision making. It may not be, and I'm hoping it's not, but that's what it looks like.

I don't get that vibe at all. Also, I was under the impression that there would be several of these playtests, each one expanding on the rules. If that's the case, then I don't consider this the alpha, but rather the first alpha.

That's some consolation. From what I'm hearing, though, this one is pretty bad which, when added to the fact that they chose a short combat encounter as the alpha... not a good thing.

Yeah, the fighter definitely needs more things to do, but from what I understand they made him deliberately the most straightforward, easiest to play. Not entirely sure why, as the kind of player who wants to do nothing but whack at things has got to be a small minority.

I really hope this is just a really bad first alpha.

Reference 2E: 2E was cool in its ability to create a system that made the players feel threatened in a world and could convincingly make a threat. It was not, however, great at simulation, which I really appreciated about 3.X. Many people don't, and that's okay. But I really did.

[Ryong]

You guys seem the new thing with how races help weapon dice? Like, if you're a dwarf your hammer is a d10 instead of d8. And how you can totally play AD&D-like by having no themes nor hit dice?

[Toast]

You guys seem the new thing with how races help weapon dice? Like, if you're a dwarf your hammer is a d10 instead of d8. And how you can totally play AD&D-like by having no themes nor hit dice?

Yeah, although themes, background, and hit dice are interesting mechanics as far as I'm concerned. That being said, I'm the sort of person who would build a custom theme rather than just pick one, but I still like the idea.

In general, I like what they've revealed so far about character customization and class distinction. I'm looking forward to seeing how the other classes are different and interesting compared to those they've shown so far.

That's some consolation. From what I'm hearing, though, this one is pretty bad which, when added to the fact that they chose a short combat encounter as the alpha... not a good thing.
I'm hearing things ranging from really bad to really awesome. A lot of it seems to stem from the DM fiat argument of it being, thus far, a very light rules system. I think that is jumping the gun a lot, since it is obvious we aren't seeing the entire system. For another, I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing.

Reference 2E: 2E was cool in its ability to create a system that made the players feel threatened in a world and could convincingly make a threat. It was not, however, great at simulation, which I really appreciated about 3.X. Many people don't, and that's okay. But I really did.
2E was also cool because it very easily allowed for the players to do things that weren't on their character sheet or explicitly defined in the rules. From my understanding of them, in 3.x and 4E this was much less the case. I like that, at least from what's presented of 5E so far, that such things can easily be resolved using checks and contests based on the ability scores.

That being said, there probably are going to be rules for things like punching and grappling, disarming, tripping, etc., they just aren't available yet. Hopefully they don't restrict them behind feats and just make them part of the basic combat rules.

[Meister]

2E was also cool because it very easily allowed for the players to do things that weren't on their character sheet or explicitly defined in the rules. From my understanding of them, in 3.x and 4E this was much less the case.
Don't see how, I've never come across anything in 4E that couldn't be resolved through application of what the system provides. There's a page in the DMG dedicated to resolving improvised actions. That and the existing skills and powers are all I ever needed. I'm not familiar with the 2E way but I can't imagine it's much simpler.

[tacticslion]

2E was also cool because it very easily allowed for the players to do things that weren't on their character sheet or explicitly defined in the rules. From my understanding of them, in 3.x and 4E this was much less the case. I like that, at least from what's presented of 5E so far, that such things can easily be resolved using checks and contests based on the ability scores.

That being said, there probably are going to be rules for things like punching and grappling, disarming, tripping, etc., they just aren't available yet. Hopefully they don't restrict them behind feats and just make them part of the basic combat rules.

Yes and no.

Each of the game systems have their own rules to allow you to do things "beyond the expressed character sheet", however 3.X worked on making the character sheet the primary form of comprehending your character's capabilities and 4E worked on making combat smooth and character creation/leveling easy. For both of the latter, the sheet itself was pretty comprehensive.

Of the three systems, though, I'd say 3.X was the most closely tied to a character's given stats (usually printed on a sheet), but its base mechanic literally functioned for most anything you could think of, and all three have interesting elements.

Though I can't really recall after, you know, ten years of not playing 2E and never having had too much experience with it* (so, you know, I could be wrong), from what I recall 2E and 4E kind of do similar things for attempting non-standard stuff, but with different dice rolls and expressions.
...
I honestly don't recall the 2E "It's not on my sheet, what do I do?" rules, now, so I'm kind of thinking I'm wrong. Having not actually owned the books (using friends only) probably helps with that a lot. Never mind! Pretty sure I'm wrong! Carry on, then, people!

One of the things I really loved in 2E (in our games, anyway) was the lack of "the common magic item". It was simply rare. That made it feel special and cool. Of course, I really enjoy the high-magic settings I've played in too... it's just a different play style, I guess.

* Predominantly, my experience with 2E was from computer games, and a few one-shot PnPs with a group that quickly came to prefer 3.X; some 2E stuff was still incorporated with the 3.0 stuff at first, but it quickly faded out, for the better of both systems, really. I've had further exposure, but it's been a rare and not really recently.

[Meister]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of magic items being so common and required in 4E. For one thing, they add too many options and conditionals to characters that are already loaded with relatively complex options, and then for DMs it's just a pain in the arse to have to keep including them in adventures because Jim the Wizard may just have found some magic robes and you'd think that'd be enough for a while but, don't you know it, Bill the Fighter is due for getting a +3 sword. It just never ends.

[DarkDrgon]

even in 3.X I always rolled for Magic Items. The magic weapons you find in a horde are never convieniently exactly what you wield, fighter. You need to decide whether the Buff on the magic spear is better or worse than what you have on your sword

[Meister]

That'd be a little inconvenient in 4E, since a lot of abilities and class features depend highly on what weapon or implement you use. Kinda daft to have to give your polearm specialist fighter a sword that's really good but keeps him from using half his tactics, and then have a really good sword disappear in the sell pile with no further consequences.

Plus if you keep rolling items the party can't use, they'll quickly be lagging behind in their attack and defense numbers. Like I said, not a big fan of magic items as such a strong requirement for those, but that's how it is.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Rolling for magic items is massive excitement. My players rebel if I give them pregenned treasure because rolling on the tables is total boss- it's like gambling but you never lose, you just win to lesser or greater degrees.

[Meister]

In my 4E campaign I'm doing a thing right now where I had my players give me item wishlists, and every time they enter a location where they could find something, I roll on that list for which one exactly it's gonna be.

Next game I run, though, I'll just have everyone use inherent bonuses to take care of the math and either roll for items or just not even going to bother with them in the first plce.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The best time was in one game where I was playing and we ended up rolling like 8 rod of the pythons during the campaign. When I later became mayor and gave out quests to random adventuring parties my standard reward would be a rod of the python.

[Locke cole]

Actually, I do like the idea of a magic item table being random. If the DM allows for you to find magic items that are higher-power than you can use, then that gives you the question of using it later or selling it now.

Of course, since most of my characters end up being spellcasters who have Ritual Casting, I'd probably just end up selling the incompatible stuff and using the money to Enchant magic items that I do want.

[tacticslion]

Actually, I do like the idea of a magic item table being random. If the DM allows for you to find magic items that are higher-power than you can use, then that gives you the question of using it later or selling it now.

Of course, since most of my characters end up being spellcasters who have Ritual Casting, I'd probably just end up selling the incompatible stuff and using the money to Enchant magic items that I do want.

Residuum. I heart Residuum. (in 4E)

Otherwise, I've started more than one thriving magic item shop/industry. Heck, a PF game I'm in (Kingmaker), my character is personally going around, spending years establishing magic colleges just so that he can create an industry of magic items for the burgeoning kingdom.

[Ryong]

On my campaign the most common reward found in dungeons are blobs of mana that can be turned into a magic item of a specific level in 10 minutes.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

My players are happy if they want say a +1 sword and I give them a masterwork hammer. Cause at least its a weapon.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

My players are happy if the notes for the campaigns I'm running say anything other than "Rocks fall, everyone dies".

[DarkDrgon]

Thats one of the things I don't like about 4th ed. I only did a couple of one shots with it, and hated how it felt like I had to cater everything to my players, as opposed to building a coherent world and throwing them into it

[Meister]

Like I said before, either here or elsewhere: 4E doesn't provide rules to create a world, 4E provides rules for a select group of individuals to interact with a world. If the worldbuilding is your thing, it's not surprising you didn't like it, it's just not meant to do it.

I've spotted an interesting incongruent argument about Next. According to some people:
When 4E gives a character a list of distinct combat options, you can't ever go beyond that list.
When Next gives a character a list of distinct combat options that is more limited than 4E's, it's actively asking you to come up with your own options beyond the list.
And I'm just wondering how this can be a thing one can earnestly believe.

[Ryong]

I've spotted an interesting incongruent argument about Next. According to some people:
When 4E gives a character a list of distinct combat options, you can't ever go beyond that list.
When Next gives a character a list of distinct combat options that is more limited than 4E's, it's actively asking you to come up with your own options beyond the list.
And I'm just wondering how this can be a thing one can earnestly believe.

Oh fuck, I'm seeing that so much.

A friend of mine is arguing that the new fighter is better than 4E fighter because he has all these weapons to use and can, say, switch to a bow without trouble!

[tacticslion]

Oh fuck, I'm seeing that so much.

A friend of mine is arguing that the new fighter is better than 4E fighter because he has all these weapons to use and can, say, switch to a bow without trouble!

This... sounds exactly like the "new toy" syndrome: something is better than something else because it's new, and thus it must be better. The actual justifications vary widely, but often enough, that's what it seems to boil down to.

I've been more than guilty of this in the past (and am still susceptible to it on occasion): it's a really easy thing to do when you're excited about something new. Still, it's a fallacy, and it can be really grating to those who aren't as taken with something as you are.

Things that do give me hope, however (from a discussion on Nerdy Show forums; it should be noted that Max is a pretty big fan of 4E):

I saw Mike Mearls just tweeted this evening that the best part of modular rules is that you can ramp up the parts you like but they aren’t forcing anything on anyone, which makes me think we haven’t seen all there will be to see from this edition yet.

and

The first feedback submission is supposed to come out today. They’re also soliciting requests for at least what other kinds of characters people want to see come the next playtest. That gives me hope that what we’re seeing here isn’t necessarily going to be a “here’s our finished product, tell us how much you like it” type scenario (though the experiences of everyone who was around for the 4E playtest sounds like that’s how that one played out).

This could be good, but is iffy. The thing is, I really hope that they're going to release lots and lots of new varied Alpha-things, that showcase a lot of different possibilities. I'm still worried that Wizards is going to do something really weird with all this, though.

Once bitten, twice shy and all that.

[Meister]

This... sounds exactly like the "new toy" syndrome: something is better than something else because it's new, and thus it must be better.
I think in this case "it's better because it's old" applies more.

I'm not at all sold on the whole module idea. Next, so far, is actively working against some of the design principles I liked most about 4E, and I doubt that rules modules can make changes on a level fundamental enough to turn that around. WotC have been hard at work for the past few years to reintroduce 3.5 design principles back into 4E, and the system as a whole suffers for it.

Modules also won't solve the problem Next is supposed to solve, which is the split in the playerbase. Instead of "4E/3.5/2E/Chainmail is the only true D&D, all the others are just imitatin'" we'll get "only the base rules plus module X and Y make the true D&D." Once there's a certain number of rules modules out, it's going to be hard to argue that any two groups are still playing the same game.

On a more general level I'm also not okay with deferring all complaints to "it'll be fixed in a module, just wait." If your basic system doesn't work, no module will fix it.

The first playtest feedback survey is also pretty terrible from a statistics/polling point of view.

[tacticslion]

I think in this case "it's better because it's old" applies more. Fair enough. I'd say some are seeing it as a regression to old ways (to varying amounts of approval), those that are newer are seeing it as the "next big thing" (to various amounts of approval). Either way, really, it applies, and is the same sentiment.

I'm not at all sold on the whole module idea. Next, so far, is actively working against some of the design principles I liked most about 4E, and I doubt that rules modules can make changes on a level fundamental enough to turn that around. WotC have been hard at work for the past few years to reintroduce 3.5 design principles back into 4E, and the system as a whole suffers for it.

Generally that's what happens when two systems that are made to be fundamentally different are introduced to each other. There are ways to break your own rules (PH2 and PH3 introduced some of those concepts rather nicely), but, unless you're attempting a genuine meld, with willingness to come up with an entirely different third system (and/or completely changing the way the rules work in general), adding 3.X stuff into 4E isn't really a good place for a game company to go. And I like adding 3.X-type stuff to 4E.

Modules also won't solve the problem Next is supposed to solve, which is the split in the playerbase. Instead of "4E/3.5/2E/Chainmail is the only true D&D, all the others are just imitatin'" we'll get "only the base rules plus module X and Y make the true D&D." Once there's a certain number of rules modules out, it's going to be hard to argue that any two groups are still playing the same game.

To a point, I agree with this. Even the majority of it. Certainly with your ultimate statement: we won't be all playing the same game anymore. To a point, however, I'm going to have to disagree: it may well "reunite" the fanbase, and that would be a loss for all of us. I'm not sure it will, but it's distinctly possible that making a modular game like this could call back the "once-faithful", as it were, to the WotC umbrella.

I do suspect, however, that this will backfire. I suspect that too many fans of 3.X have been too badly burned and too many fans of 4E are being too badly burned, and I don't think this will turn out well for WotC.

I want WotC to succeed at making a great game. I really, really do. But I also want Paizo and all the other gaming companies to succeed, and for the hobby to grow in general to a broader audience. But if WotC manages to reclaim those who've gone away with this? It's not going to reach a broader audience. It's going to refocus on them and will, most likely, regrettably stagnate.

On a more general level I'm also not okay with deferring all complaints to "it'll be fixed in a module, just wait." If your basic system doesn't work, no module will fix it.

I'm pretty much with you on this. That's why I've said that it's not a good way to do an alpha. I am, however, willing to give WotC a chance. I'm not seeing good things so far, but I'm really willing to try to give them a chance.

The first playtest feedback survey is also pretty terrible from a statistics/polling point of view.

Ah, so, you know, basically the same problems Legend and Lore has, and that Wizards has had with getting and listening to feedback since, roughly, forever.

[Ryong]

Didn't they say something about each player being able to pick what rule module applies to them?

[Meister]

They did say things that suggest something like that but recently the marketing has subtly shifted more to "each DM can use modules to make the D&D they want" and anyway I could never see that working out at all.

[tacticslion]

They did say things that suggest something like that but recently the marketing has subtly shifted more to "each DM can use modules to make the D&D they want" and anyway I could never see that working out at all.

The "each GM" thing or the "each player". 'Cause if it's the latter: no, that would never work.
- "I'm going to be 2E and practically die all the time! Also, Vancian!"
- "Well, nuts to that madness! I'm going to be 4E and be a superhero!"
- "Hah! N00bs! I'm going to be a 3.0 and Psionics! You guys are my slaves now!"
... and so on, is pretty much how that would turn out every time.

The "each GM" thing could work pretty well, but there'd be a rather advanced learning curve between each table, and they'll have to do something for organized play, or else lose it entirely.

Also, it's really not relevant, but I figured it worked well enough here. I've said it before, but, H. G. Wells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells) is the MAN (at least in regards to gaming and sci-fi). Every last one of us owe our hobby to him (see the last paragraph under "Writer"). (... some of the other stuff is rather iffy.)

Anyway, we can all blame him. It's his fault for starting this whole mess.

[Meister]

Each player.

And let's not kid ourselves, organized play is going to be basic ruleset + whatever module just came out.

I read a neat explanation why the current design of giving the wizard lots of spells and the fighter attacks and nothing else is objectively bad game design. The system ostensibly encourages player creativity such as you allegedly can't use in a system with clearly defined abilities, but it boils down to this: whenever the fighter wants to do something outside of "attack," he has to specifically ask the DM to be allowed to to it, and what kind of skill/ability check to use. The DM is entirely free to allow or reject improvised stunts based on his idea of what a fighter should be able to do, or if you want to be unfavourable about it, on his whims. Meanwhile, the wizard automatically gets a broad selection of options beyond attacking with clearly defined workings that don't require DM approval and, I guarantee, would often in fact go against DM approval, but are within the basic rules of the game so he's forced to allow them. If you disagree with the word "forced," then at least rejecting them would be a departure from the stated rules of "what a wizard gets to do."

It's a huge, inherent discrepancy in how much influence a player of a certain class is allowed to exert on the game, it's a problem that 3.5 had to some extent and 4E didn't, and the developers don't give any indication they even recognize it as a problem. As a matter of fact many seem to see it as a virtue of the system and believe that Daily powers and a grid are all anyone ever liked about 4E.

[Meister]

And not to forget: the wizard can ask the DM for improvised actions on top of what he already gets.

[tacticslion]

Each player.

Cool.

And let's not kid ourselves, organized play is going to be basic ruleset + whatever module just came out.

Suck.

I read a neat explanation why the current design of giving the wizard lots of spells and the fighter attacks and nothing else is objectively bad game design. The system ostensibly encourages player creativity such as you allegedly can't use in a system with clearly defined abilities, but it boils down to this: whenever the fighter wants to do something outside of "attack," he has to specifically ask the DM to be allowed to to it, and what kind of skill/ability check to use. The DM is entirely free to allow or reject improvised stunts based on his idea of what a fighter should be able to do, or if you want to be unfavourable about it, on his whims. Meanwhile, the wizard automatically gets a broad selection of options beyond attacking with clearly defined workings that don't require DM approval and, I guarantee, would often in fact go against DM approval, but are within the basic rules of the game so he's forced to allow them. If you disagree with the word "forced," then at least rejecting them would be a departure from the stated rules of "what a wizard gets to do."

See, I get the theory: the execution of such things is a little hazy, however. This sounds, in theory/principle, similar to what 4E does insomuch as it deals with stuff that's not covered in the Powers section. The way you describe it, though, sounds much more random and subjective, compared to the DMGs description.

It's a huge, inherent discrepancy in how much influence a player of a certain class is allowed to exert on the game, it's a problem that 3.5 had to some extent and 4E didn't, and the developers don't give any indication they even recognize it as a problem.

Really, any discrepancy would be dependent entirely upon how potent or useful the basic things a wizard can do.

See, the problem with claiming that a system like this can't work is that it depends heavily on the viability of the two classes. The idea, of course, is that fighters (and their ilk) are always versatile/ready, while wizards get big, flashy things that they can try, but have finite resources to do so. In some ways, this hearkens back to the 1E mentality of "1st level wizards suck, but rock at high levels" type thing, which is cool enough, and has merit, even!

The real problem, I think, though, is that such a thing really does limit play styles and expectancy, though that's like anything really.

I'm not going to argue that keeping a "huge inherent discrepancy" is a good thing, at all. I like the idea of fighters being able to do different things*. Heck, I think if the 4E fighter (and ranger and rogue) would have had access to a large set of different at-wills (or at least rechargeable abilities), rather than the rigid at-will/encounter/daily set**, it would have helped to smooth things over between the editions (especially if Fighters had more interesting combat-related tricks). Certainly, it would have made a major (positive) impact on me, actually treating the different power sources somewhat differently (while still balancing against one another).

As a matter of fact many seem to see it as a virtue of the system and believe that Daily powers and a grid are all anyone ever liked about 4E.

Those are, like, some of the worst aspects of the system. I mean, really. That's some of the stuff I like least about 4E - the metagamey nature of it all. I mean, daily powers are okay, or whatever, in certain contexts, but in general? ... bleh. I've almost given up describing things in "squares" to my players entirely.

And not to forget: the wizard can ask the DM for improvised actions on top of what he already gets.

Which actually makes plenty of sense. If the fighter is purely limited to "hitting stuff + asking", however, that's the problem, rather than the wizard (at least inherently - a wizard could be easily messed up by virtue of many other things, but it's not inherently broken to have the system as described, lacking other information).

* A fantastic example of this structure are some of the Pathfinder monk class variants. It's really cool things that they allow monks to do to create their own style of combat, and letting them perform nifty tricks.

** 4E does not need that structure to function. At all. Psionics is a perfect example of that. I've personally altered some of my players' stuff to become rechargable and messed with that structure a bit, and it still functions pretty smoothly. It really hammers home the feeling sometimes that WotC really didn't test their system thoroughly enough: didn't put it through the ringer enough, and didn't meddle, modify, and play with it before releasing it.

[Meister]

This sounds, in theory/principle, similar to what 4E does insomuch as it deals with stuff that's not covered in the Powers section.
It's exactly the opposite of what 4E does inso much as it deals with stuff that is covered in the Powers section, because every class in 4E has a large number of options to influence a situation built in, and of course they all get the same chance to do stuff outside the powers.

Not including that Essentials bollocks, which is still better than what this playtest does because at least everyone sits on the same transparent framework.

e: and Essentials is a much better example for how 4E still works without the At Will/Encounter/Daily structure. Mind you I'm not saying it doesn't work, either, or it isn't a perfectly servicable way to play D&D, I just don't like it very much.

Really, any discrepancy would be dependent entirely upon how potent or useful the basic things a wizard can do.
As of the current Next playtest, damage enemies at range without having to roll for it, set anything on fire he wants including entire encounters, and stun an enemy forever.

[tacticslion]

It's exactly the opposite of what 4E does inso much as it deals with stuff that is covered in the Powers section, because every class in 4E has a large number of options to influence a situation built in, and of course they all get the same chance to do stuff outside the powers.

Soooooooooooooo: not what I was saying at all. I was also not disfavorably comparing 4E to anything! What I meant was: "actions not covered by the rules work like X". That's about it.

Not including that Essentials bollocks, which is still better than what this playtest does because at least everyone sits on the same transparent framework.

e: and Essentials is a much better example for how 4E still works without the At Will/Encounter/Daily structure. Mind you I'm not saying it doesn't work, either, or it isn't a perfectly servicable way to play D&D, I just don't like it very much.

So, I've heard you say similar things before, but hear much the opposite from others. I'd be really curious to hear what Essentials does that you don't like. As in, how is it 4E, what does it change that makes it feel strange, etc. I don't have it, so the question is: "What is Essentials?"

As of the current Next playtest, damage enemies at range without having to roll for it, set anything on fire he wants including entire encounters, and stun an enemy forever. That sounds ugly. Any more news or feedback from the playtests?

[Meister]

Essentials was advertised as a basic version of the game that would make it easier to simply pick up and play. There would be new subclasses specifically designed to facilitate this, and the rules would get a general overhaul.

It wasn't long before it became the de facto baseline design paradigm for all new materials and officially organized play. If you show up at your local game store to play Encounters, you're not supposed to bring a PHB1/2/3 character at all. It's built on the same mathematical framework and all materials are 100% compatible, but Essentials stuff is noticably different.

Probably most obvious is a pronounced tendency of martial characters to lack daily powers and use mainly basic attacks enhanced with riders, while casters' resource structure is by and large unchanged. This leads neatly into the second difference: there's a definite tendency of Essentials material to tie descriptions and mechanics closer together. Put bluntly, it comes off as a transparent attempt to appease the players who complained about the very thought of fighter daily powers being unrealistic and powers flavourless and mechanical.

Another problem with Essentials is that every class is technically a subclass of a PHB class (including the old PHB ones - what you see in PHB1 under "Wizard" is now technically a subclass called Arcanist, subclass of the Wizard). It's set up so the majority of powers now carry over between subclasses within one "super-class." When you play a Wizard (Arcanist), and the new Essentials book comes out featuring the Wizard (Witch), you can now choose Witch powers for your Arcanist. Problem is, most every Essentials class is squeezed under the roof of one of the traditional four D&D classes, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue and Fighter. As a result, those steadily gain more new options, while all others stay right where they were when Essentials was released.

One more issue: the reliance of certain classes on basic attacks messes with established design. There are a number of items and options you can choose that enhance your basic attacks. Those were designed around the concept of basic attacks being used relatively rarely - after all, you had your encounter and daily powers, and even most at-wills aren't basic attacks. So it was okay to throw them in the mix for those characters that wanted to beef up their opportunity attacks or that did have basic attack at-will powers. Then Essentials introduced classes that did only basic attacks, often with riders. But you still have all those items kicking around in the system, and suddenly the Essentials classes spike hugely in power. Those items went from "occasionally useful" to "must have," and an Essentials character decked out with them can easily get a lot more effective than a non-Essentials character even with the same sort of items.

Example: you've got a Warlock who picks up some goggles that grant +1 to basic attack rolls and some bracers that grant +2 to basic attack damage rolls. Eldritch Blast can be used as a basic attack, so he'll get good use out of them, but most of the time he'll still use his other powers because they have better additional effects than the Eldritch Blast.
Now the Essentials Hunter, an archer class, comes in. He picks up the same two items, but all his powers involve him making a basic attack, so he gets to use those bonuses each and every time he attacks, and he freely puts his additional effect riders on them as well.

So, in a nutshell, Essentials works, produces classes that are efficient and fun to play, but also messes with the system far more than is good for it and solves no objective problems while introducing new ones, all for no good reason.

[tacticslion]

Essentials was advertised as a basic version of the game that would make it easier to simply pick up and play. There would be new subclasses specifically designed to facilitate this, and the rules would get a general overhaul.

It wasn't long before it became the de facto baseline design paradigm for all new materials and officially organized play. If you show up at your local game store to play Encounters, you're not supposed to bring a PHB1/2/3 character at all. It's built on the same mathematical framework and all materials are 100% compatible, but Essentials stuff is noticably different.

Interesting. It doesn't sound like it succeeded in its stated goal, but became something else.

Probably most obvious is a pronounced tendency of martial characters to lack daily powers and use mainly basic attacks enhanced with riders, while casters' resource structure is by and large unchanged. This leads neatly into the second difference: there's a definite tendency of Essentials material to tie descriptions and mechanics closer together. Put bluntly, it comes off as a transparent attempt to appease the players who complained about the very thought of fighter daily powers being unrealistic and powers flavourless and mechanical.

This actually sounds pretty cool to me. I know you kind of hate that whole thing, but it really sounds pretty neat to me, and exactly what I would have done, had I been building 4E.

Another problem with Essentials is that every class is technically a subclass of a PHB class (including the old PHB ones - what you see in PHB1 under "Wizard" is now technically a subclass called Arcanist, subclass of the Wizard). It's set up so the majority of powers now carry over between subclasses within one "super-class." When you play a Wizard (Arcanist), and the new Essentials book comes out featuring the Wizard (Witch), you can now choose Witch powers for your Arcanist. Problem is, most every Essentials class is squeezed under the roof of one of the traditional four D&D classes, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue and Fighter. As a result, those steadily gain more new options, while all others stay right where they were when Essentials was released.

Okay, this I've heard of and vaguely run into when looking at various elements. It's strange because I've been looking to hear about any sort of support for the Primal classes, Psionic Classes and the non-standard Arcane/Divine/Martial, as those were some of the more interesting options available.

One more issue: the reliance of certain classes on basic attacks messes with established design. There are a number of items and options you can choose that enhance your basic attacks. Those were designed around the concept of basic attacks being used relatively rarely - after all, you had your encounter and daily powers, and even most at-wills aren't basic attacks. So it was okay to throw them in the mix for those characters that wanted to beef up their opportunity attacks or that did have basic attack at-will powers. Then Essentials introduced classes that did only basic attacks, often with riders. But you still have all those items kicking around in the system, and suddenly the Essentials classes spike hugely in power. Those items went from "occasionally useful" to "must have," and an Essentials character decked out with them can easily get a lot more effective than a non-Essentials character even with the same sort of items.

Example: you've got a Warlock who picks up some goggles that grant +1 to basic attack rolls and some bracers that grant +2 to basic attack damage rolls. Eldritch Blast can be used as a basic attack, so he'll get good use out of them, but most of the time he'll still use his other powers because they have better additional effects than the Eldritch Blast.
Now the Essentials Hunter, an archer class, comes in. He picks up the same two items, but all his powers involve him making a basic attack, so he gets to use those bonuses each and every time he attacks, and he freely puts his additional effect riders on them as well.

I can see why this could be a problem, but it doesn't sound like it would really be that unbalanced. Now, again, I'd have to run a lot and see what the various abilities would be.

So, in a nutshell, Essentials works, produces classes that are efficient and fun to play, but also messes with the system far more than is good for it and solves no objective problems while introducing new ones, all for no good reason.

From what you say, I can see your points, but I'd say it does have a "good" reason: it's trying to bring people back together under the WotC/D&D banner rather than allow them to continue fleeing to other companies. Still, I can understand your frustration.

[Meister]

It is pretty cool actually. The martial classes can hold their own compared to the caster archetypes, they're just less complex - that alone is a world of difference to Next's current approach of "fighter swings his sword all day, wizard wins the day." Like I said, 4E works even without the classic power structure. But I would really have liked to see some martial Essentials classes that retain their complex options and some casters that use only simple attacks. That way it would have been more believable as an exercise in reducing complexity; as it stands it comes off as "hey everyone, the way PHB classes are built are wrong, this is what it's really like, fighting always simple, casting always complex." It doesn't seem like the changes were made to improve the game system, but rather to model some sort of "realistic" approach to physical combat vs. magic, where "realistic" is code for "how D&D used to do it," and that simply wasn't necessary because the way classic 4E does it is perfectly alright.

(I hear there's a newer Essentials book that features a caster like that, though. Gotta look into that. But, you know, first impressions, basic design vs. later additions, and all that.)

And the basic attack enhancers do make a difference. I had a group once where the sole essentials character's attack bonus was effectively permanently 3 higher than all her companions' against the same defense. That's a pretty big deal when you consider you have to follow specific tactics or spend resources in combat to modify attacks or defenses by 2.

e: anyway it's not like those are the only things that bug me about it. That would be the undercurrent of "hey, let's bring back all the stuff from 3.5 like Power Word Kill and Wish so groups won't lose the vital ability to make jokes about those."

Not kidding by the way, one main reason given for reintroducing 3.5 style saving throws into Next was "jokes about failing one's saving throw are a part of gaming culture, we aim to give it a proper basis again." Y'know, rather than actual game design and thought going into it.

[Ryong]

Well, technically those bonuses should balance out the fact that an essentials character is lacking encounter or daily powers, as people usually being combat throwing encounter powers first.

I'm not a fan of the saving throws on 5e and would much prefer if they worked either like 4e and maybe, for, say, petrification and other massively crippling or outright killing effects maybe make it so early on you get 3 saves 'til it actually fucks you up and just make that get to 2 saves when you're 11~20 and then 1 save when 21~30 or some such. I mean cripes, does this weird chicken have the same crippling power of a medusa demigoddess? Fuck that.

Also:

Every time you answer the quiz, suggest yards to be used in 5e. Apparently they want to use meters but can't because of americans but a yard is pretty close to a meter and then americans would call it ward and everyone else would call it meter.

[Meister]

Mike Mearls did an AMA on reddit (:rolleyes:) and promised, among other things, the development of more concrete options in combat for fighters and the fixing of a little issue in the playtest that happened when the sample adventure put 18 rats in an encounter, i.e. shit completely broke down into tedious dice rolling.

Personally I've pretty much been soured on D&D as a whole by years of inane edition warring and looking at the often bafflingly idiotic decisions that shape errata, but they might yet make Next into a game I'd consider playing in if someone runs it, rather than one I'll go out of my way to avoid.

e: then again in the very first answer we have
wizards and clerics are inherently a little more complex than non-casters
and I'm right back to not caring.

[Meister]

New development blog. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120625) Gonna just pick out some choice bits:

More than 60 percent of respondents are satisfied with the core rules.
So over 30% of the people who were interested enough in the playtest to sign up, an inherently biased group, weren't satisfied with the at-present core rules of the edition that's supposed to bring everyone together. As a developer I'd be constantly shitting myself with worry.

The tactical module takes many traditional elements of miniatures gaming and introduces them to D&D. Facing, terrain, knockback, and so on all get a full treatment here, along with rules for morale and generic maneuvers such as grappling, trip, disarm, and so on. You can think of this as a fusion of the 3E combat rules written with 4E's approach to streamlining things.
Up to now "tactical module" sounded kind of like the thing you could point to and say "ah okay, that's what you use when you want a more 4E-like game," because 4E kind of was the edition where you could have tactical combat, and surprise surprise, it takes its mechanics from 3E and sounds really mundane. Terrain and tripping. Exciting.

A number of issues revolve around resting and healing, including cleric healing, the amount of healing available, the Hit Die mechanic, and the ease of regaining all your hit points with an overnight rest. We had these same issues in the friends and family playtest that we ran before opening things up, so this is clearly going to be an issue that we'll have to wrestle with for a while.
"We saw a problem in the pre-playtest and couldn't figure out how to fix it in time for the playtest, and we still don't have a clue."

For clerics, we're looking at moving healing out of the spell list and making it easy to cast a healing spell and do something such as attack during your turn.
Such a shame that no edition of D&D ever had an easily understandable system that allowed for taking one small and one big action in one turn.

Finally, we'd like to find a way to balance the Hit Die mechanic against natural healing. The Hit Die mechanic places a cap on how many hit points you can regain each day through rest. Finding an elegant way to cap such healing without adding complexity would be great. We're thinking about our options, but we don't have any new rules to report.
Such a shame that no edition of D&D ever had a system that limited available healing by character and day in a way and only needed a single number to express it.

[Ryong]

A friend of mine went and said he liked everything about 5e but that it uses yards.

Why the heck did they get rid of minor actions, seriously?

And the healing, yeah, the playtest party shouldn't need two clerics just so you can cast spells that aren't healing and survive.

I'd appreciate introducing facing and some new methods of attacking and spells - such as spells that hit a line, or, say, an adjacent row - but there's some that are a bit complex, such as cone.

[Meister]

They're reprinting the three core 3.5 books too, their own trust in Next is obviously sky high.

e: like there's "I just bought 4th edition! (five years ago, the average edition cycle)" and there's "I just bought 3.5th edition! (literally just, less than a year ago, as a reprint I was sure I'd like)"

e2: you might say walls are spells that hit a line.

[Nikose Tyris]

...I'm actually kind of okay with the 3.5 books getting reprints. I'd love to pick those up for my sister.

[Meister]

Hahaha the latest playtest survey is literally nothing more than a list of wizard and cleric spell names and you're supposed to check the ones you feel make the wizard a wizard and the cleric a cleric. Not even a hint of what any one spell would do or how it would work in the game. Does Teleport get you to the other side of the room once a day or to the other side of the world whenever you want? Who knows, but the wizard had better be able to do it!

[Ryong]

Man, I tried playing 3.5 ages ago and didn't like it. Then I played 4e like, what, 2 years ago, at most? And I really enjoyed it. Now there's one dude on our group who's fucking pumped about 5e and he's like, "on with the times". So, his dark sun 4e campaign that he loved doesn't matter because Wizards is coming out with a new edition and WE'RE GOING TO PLAY IT BECAUSE IT'S THE NEW ONE.

Like, the group as a whole liked some things from 3.5 ( the scale of epic, the variety of skills ) but noticed how terrible was the balance ( druids are fucking absurd, the bonus attacks fighters get never ever hit, low level wizards and sorcerers having to rely on crossbows because they ran out of spells really fast or their spells won't work in this situation ) and how they like the defenses and action breakdown 4e uses, even if they complain that fights get too long.

But no, we must go on and if I'm resisting the change to 5e it's just a natural thing because they played aDnD with some people who never left it "because the new editions are terrible" and then again with 3.5. Even though this is clearly damage control and an attempt to go back to earlier editions.

[Meister]

Oh yeah I forgot

the lists are pretty much the basic 3.5 lists, split in 9 spell levels and everything

[Pip Boy]

This stuff is reminding me why I like the Pathfinder approach to fixing 3.5's problems rather than the 4e and 5e approach. 3.5 had a usable set of base rules that maybe could use some fixing and adjustment, so fix and adjust them, don't completely remodel the entire system into something worse and then 4 years later decide you like it the old way again.

If the rising popularity of Pathfinder vs D&D I've seen lately is any indicator, its that Paizo is doing a better job of making D&D than Wizards of the Coast is, and they're doing it using rules almost as old as I am.

[Tev]

Mearls did an interview recently over at RPG Codex (http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8309).

More and more I've come to the conclusion that if I play this version of D&D at all, it will most certainly be as a player and not as a DM. Everything that made being a DM easy in 4th Ed is either gone, intentionally overlooked, or camouflaged as a shittier version of itself in a vain attempt to please old and grumpy nerds dating as far back as OD&D. The one innovation that I actually had high hopes for (Backgrounds and Themes) is really just a carry-over from existing versions of itself in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions. The healing system is really just 4th Ed's Healing Surge mechanic, but randomized for the lols and renamed to prevent scaring off the oldbies. The only really new-ish thing they have been able to offer up so far is the Advantage/Disadvantage system which currently favors the spellcasters who don't actually roll dice for much of anything and is really just a modified rip-off of the Avenger's class ability from 4th Ed.

I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of overhaul took place when the new play-test hits my email box, but really, I'm not caring much for this D&DNostalgia edition. I used to play back then. I remember how much fun it was, but I also remember how shitty it was.

[Ryong]

don't completely remodel the entire system into something worse

I take offense to that ::V:. While 4e isn't perfect - I still have issues with how creatures and defenses scale, how some defenders work ( but this may be just my whole group being dicks about it ) and how some skills have to be stretched to do what you want sometimes - but at least it doens't turn into a clusterfuck of warriors that can't do shit while the sorcerer and wizard fly around shooting death at everything. And then 5e rolls around and wants to have a 3rd level monster that can kill anyone because you looked at it wrong.

Edit: Having not found any info regarding the new healing mechanics - besides doing the first playtest against them rats - how are them just like 4e's surges?

[Tev]

Edit: Having not found any info regarding the new healing mechanics - besides doing the first playtest against them rats - how are them just like 4e's surges?As you know, in 4th Ed, players received a set amount of Healing Surges and a flat number value for how much those surges healed. Healing Surges could be spent by the players to heal and were refreshed after a long rest.

In the D&DNext play-test, players receive a set number of "Hit Dice" (one per level) that can be spent by the players to heal themselves. Hit Dice are refreshed after a long rest. Unlike Healing Surge values, which were flat, Hit Dice must be rolled. A third level Fighter with three Hit Dice (d10s for fighter if I recall) could, in theory, roll his own three Hit Dice to heal up at the end of a fight and only heal three total hit points (having rolled three 1's on 3d10) as opposed to just gaining back 75% of his Hit Point total like he would have done under the Healing Surge system (Healing Surges were normally a flat rate of 25% of your total hit points).

EDIT: Hit Dice are just shittier Healing Surges.

[Ryong]

Welp.

[Tev]

In other news, today Mearls and Co. revealed their plan to hide 4th Ed Fighter maneuvers under a large pile of dice and hope anti-4th Ed players who hate Fighters being able to do things wouldn't notice (http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730).

Playing "Spot the Hidden 4th Ed Mechanic" is getting to be a really fun pastime these days.

[Ryong]

A friend of mine has gone with "4e isn't hidden, it's right there" and I'm like "yes and they don't have a hate-on for 4e right?".

[Meister]

Your friend is missing the point that a big part of 4E's appeal is that mechanics and interactions aren't hidden.

[Tev]

Mike Mearls sits down with Penny Arcade's Jerry Holkins (Tycho) and Mike Karhulik (Gabe) and PvP's Scott Kurtz to explain to 75% of Acquisitions Inc. why they should give up on 4th Ed and embrace DDN as the future of D&D and use their star power to help 5th Ed not fail. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120806) Most highlighted paraphrased exchange thus far?

(Gabe): But dude, I like 4th Edition. You're telling me I have to give it all up for this new crappy system?
(Mearls): I'm going to be honest with you here, if you like 4th Ed, just stick with it. There's not really going to be anything in DDN for you man.

Of course, that's not quite how that went down. It was more like this:

Mike Krahuluk: "I'm-- Listen, I'm coming -- I've never had to deal with another edition. I don't understand why I need another edition of something I could do whatever I want with.
Mike Mearls: "No, exactly. You need to be sold on it. That is perfectly reasonable.
Mike Krahuluk: "You want me to get all these books and rules, right? I mean--"
Mike Mearls: "Well, this is the thing. Sure, I'd love if everyone just bought everything every month that came out, but honestly, at the end of the day, if you're playing Fourth and you enjoy it, there's no reason to stop playing, right?"
Mike Krahuluk: "Ok"
Mike Mearls: "One of the things with a new edition, we don't want people-- I don't want people to feel if you're not playing a new edition you're not playing D&D anymore, that you're being left out in the cold, and all that, because there are going to be plenty of people who -- there are people who still play First Edition, original D&D."
Mike Krahuluk: "Sure."
Mike Mearls: "Because I think a lot of it is as DM, you're creating stuff and if you find a set of tools that works for you, why, I mean obviously, it's great if we can make a game that you look at and go 'okay, this is great and I want to move on to the new edition because it's doing what I want' and I have had some challenges, right, because we have all these different audiences, people who want, you know, different things out of D&D. So, in some ways, that's the real challenge.

"But at the end of the day, it's really about playing the version of the game that makes you the happiest. Because a lot of the stuff -- and I think this is a big thing about D&D -- because every group is different, when we talk about these things, I as the game designer guy can only talk about general trends. Right? This is generally what we see in the audience. This is kind of the bigger picture thing. But that doesn't mean anything when you look at individual gaming groups and tables. Because everyone has experienced the game differently. That's what makes D&D great. It isn't just the same thing for everybody.

"And if Fourth's working for you-- Fourth's a great game, right? So I don't think there's any sense that you have to move on or you're making a mistake."

In other news: Chris Perkins will be running the PAX celebrity game as usual this year except that they will all be using the play-test material instead of 4th Ed. I hear Will Wheaton is pissed.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Man my letter writing campaign to Wizards meticulously pointing out how 4th edition is ontologically flawed has finally worked!
Like there is a lot of bitching in here but that's just cause you guys are discriminatory against poor Hegelians. Priveledge all up in this hizzouse.

[Meister]

If Mearls would come out and actually say "I didn't like or understand 4E, I liked earlier editions, and now that I'm in charge of development, I want to make a new game that plays like those" I think the atmosphere would improve a lot. I'd still think it was a spectacularly idiotic thing to do but at least it would be a clearly stated design goal.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Its easier to just lie than to explain to people how 4th ed operates on a negative dialectic.

[Tev]

Its easier to just lie than to explain to people how 4th ed operates on a negative dialectic.I know you're just saying that to say it, but how does a system that works almost entirely on positive scale operate on a negative dialect?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

What? What do you mean by a positive scale.

[tacticslion]

So anyway, I'm not a huge fan of 4E.

Let's get that out here right now. I think it does some great stuff, but it tends to break my immersion, be all about combat rules-wise, and frustrates me to no end sometimes. I really wanted it to be something different than what it was. Something better, to me. It wasn't my cup of tea. Oh well.

That said, I think it's a perfectly acceptable edition. It does what it does well, and it works for some people. Those people really, really like it. A great deal. That's great! For them, I'm actually sad that it's coming to an end. It's really just not pleasant.

I haven't tested 5E. I don't know that I will. I'm unsure if I'll play it.

But here's the thing. The complaints in this thread? They sound exactly like the complaints I heard about 4E. Exactly. (Though sometimes using the reverse words.)

"Why are they doing away with , when it worked fine?!"

"Seriously?! They're only trying to get [insert group you don't care about] as their customers! It's such an obvious ploy!"

"Why would they completely trash [insert flavor] for [i]that?"

"I can't believe they're really going with that mechanic over this much more serviceable one!"

Etc.

So, guys? If you have valid complaints... okay. I can see that. I'd like to hear them. But just saying, "It's better in the edition that I like better!" is not a valid complaint. It wasn't valid when 4E came out, and it's not valid for Next. The fact that Mearls is encouraging people to play the game they want? That's... actually really mature of him. He wants people to play his product, because it's his job. He wants people to give him money so he can go grocery shopping and support himself, his wife, his kids, and so on. It makes sense. But you know what he's doing? He's saying, "Here's our product, I really hope you like it, but please, whatever you do, just do what's fun for you." That's a really good thing for him to do. Very generous.

What I really hope is that they continue to support 4E for those who like it. I don't think they will. But I hope so, for your guys' sake.

If Mearls would come out and actually say "I didn't like or understand 4E, I liked earlier editions, and now that I'm in charge of development, I want to make a new game that plays like those" I think the atmosphere would improve a lot. I'd still think it was a spectacularly idiotic thing to do but at least it would be a clearly stated design goal.

... er... Meister? He's one of the principle people who helped create 4E. His name is on the front cover of the Monster Manual (the first one), and the Player's Handbooks 2 and 3. In the credits section (about the second page) of at least four of my books he's listed right underneath the design team section as part of the "D&D 4th Edition Final Development Strike Team", along with Bill Slavicsek and James Wyatt (and James Wyatt is part of the "D&D 4th Edition Design Team" too). He's part of the "Player's Handbook Development" too. Saying that he didn't like or understand an edition that he helped create seems rather far-fetched.

[Ryong]

Except I don't remember 4E being rallied as the one edition to solve everything for every D&D fan out there.

[Meister]

But here's the thing. The complaints in this thread? They sound exactly like the complaints I heard about 4E. Exactly. (Though sometimes using the reverse words.)

"Why are they doing away with , when it worked fine?!"

"Seriously?! They're only trying to get [insert group you don't care about] as their customers! It's such an obvious ploy!"

"Why would they completely trash [insert flavor] for [i]that?"

"I can't believe they're really going with that mechanic over this much more serviceable one!"
Please quote the actual complaints you have an issue with if you're interested in a discussion about them. Not really fair to throw out some generalized statements and leave those on the other side of the debate to guess what exactly they're supposed to defend.

That said I can take a guess at the second one, you're probably talking about "they're trying to get the MMO/video game crowd on board" vs. "they're trying to get old edition players back on board." The difference (in content, not in structure) is that when 3.5 was the current edition you didn't have people complaining about it saying it needed more MMO elements, whereas with 4E, you have a vocal subgroup of players who are actively pulling for more oldschool design. Further, note the word "back" - the reason I, and many other players, don't want any of that oldschool design back is because our experience from past editions is that it's no fun. By comparison, why don't those who complained about 4E want "video game design elements" in the game? Is there ever a reason beyond "it's from video games"? What is it they don't like about it? You tell me because the argument has never gone that far anywhere I've seen.

In summary:
"They're just trying to get the old players back" - this is bad because the old players have made it plain exactly what kind of game they want, and I know from experience that kind of game will be bad
"They're just trying to get MMO or console kids" - I can't tell why this is bad. I can think of a huge number of reasons why introducing video game design elements into an RPG would be bad but I've been playing 4E since it came out and none of them apply.

(e: I can think of one thing that maybe half counts: condition and effect tracking. It's a huge pain and one area where 4E could desperately use a cleanup and you might say it's inspired by video games, where you can easily track that sort of thing because the computer does it for you. But then condition tracking isn't exactly a thing 4E introduced to D&D and I'd say on the whole it does a better job of it than 3.5 where you have effects that vary greatly in length and conditions like ability score damage that force you to recalculate your entire character sheet on the fly, which is another thing a computer can do better. So I'm listing this one for completeness and fairness' sake but insist if you let it count, it has to apply to both of those editions.)

I'm not even saying 4E has or has no clearly-from-video-games aspects, that's a whole other discussion.

He's saying, "Here's our product, I really hope you like it, but please, whatever you do, just do what's fun for you." That's a really good thing for him to do. Very generous.
It's not generous to allow players to keep playing 4th edition while designing the edition that is basically "everything from D&D but not 4th edition hohoho we know how that turned out *wink*" Rather it's the nicest way of saying they're not going to include very much from 4th.

I don't need Mike Mearls to tell me I can just keep playing 4E, anyway. It's more about how throwing out good game design and going back to bad in the name of I don't even know what is a really stupid thing to do.

He's one of the principle people who helped create 4E.
Haha bollocks. Quick question: what is a "final development strike team" and what was their task during development? Because I sure can't tell. More or less important than the design team that's listed right above them?

If any one person can be said to be the creator of 4E, it's Rob Heinsoo, the lead designer. It's quite interesting to read interviews with him (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20090313) about the design process and compare them to the kind of articles we get these days. Heinsoo doesn't shy away from naming exactly what he didn't like about D&D as it was then, how he intended to fix that, and what difficulties there were. Those are clearly stated design goals as opposed to the current policy of appeasement in promotional articles. "We're thinking of handling healing this way, oh but if you don't like how that sounds there will be other ways, don't worry."

Mearls was lead designer when Essentials rolled around, and surprise, Essentials featured martial classes without daily powers and powerful spellcasters, which old edition players had long clamored for. And it was even Mearls who had come up with the at-will/encounter/daily structure in the first place. Hell he's lead designer now and look where that's taking the game and what he writes about 4E. His lack of understanding how elements of 4E worked together and why people like it is really obvious.

[tacticslion]

Please quote the actual complaints you have an issue with if you're interested in a discussion about them. Not really fair to throw out some generalized statements and leave those on the other side of the debate to guess what exactly they're supposed to defend.

Meister, I'm not actually saying that you're wrong in your complaints, per se. My problems isn't with complaints in general, so much as it is with the elitist-sounding tone of the complaints (at least just from the way it looks on-screen). Feel free to complain all you want. I'm only mentioning that it just sounds like grognards complaining that their favored system isn't being supported and "how dare anyone like something different". Again, I don't even think you guys mean to sound that way, it just seems like it from the way it's being worded here.

That said I can take a guess at the second one, you're probably talking about "they're trying to get the MMO/video game crowd on board" vs. "they're trying to get old edition players back on board." The difference (in content, not in structure) is that when 3.5 was the current edition you didn't have people complaining about it saying it needed more MMO elements,...

... which makes it seem like it was strange that they'd up and change the system to something no one was asking for?

... whereas with 4E, you have a vocal subgroup of players who are actively pulling for more oldschool design.

This... really doesn't prove any point, except you're unhappy that some people, who spoke loudly, were heard.

You're making a value judgement that raises one group of people as more important than another and that's kind of petty. It's petty when it goes the other way, too, just to be clear. I don't care about self-proclaimed "grognards" more than so-called "MMO-Nerds" (or whatever derogatory or self-proclaimed title applies). I'm only asking that the presentation look a little, I don't know, less "spiteful".

Further, note the word "back" - the reason I, and many other players, don't want any of that oldschool design back is because our experience from past editions is that it's no fun.

That's a fine judgement for you and other players. And I'm okay with that. I'd actually be quite interested to hear a point-by-point, where you guys think they should change, how you think they should change etc. I know it kind of goes against NPF's whole thing, but I'd just kind of like to hear it without all the seeming indignation dripping from every post. You are more than entitled to your opinion, and I'd love to hear it. It's just difficult to read with the current attitude that appears to be expressed herein.

By comparison, why don't those who complained about 4E want "video game design elements" in the game? Is there ever a reason beyond "it's from video games"? What is it they don't like about it? You tell me because the argument has never gone that far anywhere I've seen.

Okay. Let's talk about this a bit. One of the reasons I don't like 4E as much as other systems is that it's not immersive, as a gaming system. Note that I'm not saying you can't role-play with it. But you can role-play with the Star Wars RPG (I mean the old d6-only one), but that's hardly an immersive system. The problem, for me, lies in the fact that nothing works like anything else. The world makes no sense. It's incoherent. 4E is a great battle simulator. In fact, that's the majority of what it does. It simulates battle, divvies out loot, and controls how you spend said loot (in terms of what you can spend it on... so long as that has to do with battle or magic). There are skills within the system, of course, and these can be used, but the system itself was not supported well, at least not as of the first three Player's Handbooks, the entire suite of the first set of published adventures (the first nine that took you from heroic tier to epic tier), the Campaign Settings, the Manual of the Planes, and the Chromatic Draconomicon. The Metallic did some pretty neat stuff with the adventures... at least a few of 'em. All that stuff that I mentioned? That's a huge investment to sink into a system that doesn't do much and under-performs in most of the regards I want it to.

You tell me that the MM3 and the Monster Vault changed the math to make battles better? That's great! ... it also comes very much so too late for those, like me, who really put a lot of money and invested into a system that kept disappointing, when I had better options. I believe you when you say it gets better. But for me, it's just too late to really sink more money into.

The problem with it being too much like a video game is, quite frankly, it's too much like a video game. If I wanted to play a video game, that's what I'd play: a video game. With it's video-game elements, 4E was trying to be too much like something it wasn't. (It's worth noting, however, that 4E was originally supposed to be exactly that: a video-game-like experience, with most of the "action" happening on that "Virtual Table Top" Wizards kept promising that never happened. All that tracking would have been splendidly easy to keep up with. That never happened due to an honestly terrible tragedy that was no one's fault at Wizards, but really, that's another discussion altogether.)

Me? I like my systems consistent. I like my NPCs and monsters and PCs and all the rules to be not only transparent, but also consistent throughout. One of the stranger complaints I heard upthread was that 4E was transparent. Which is true! ... except where it isn't. Which is whenever the GM needs to pull something out of thin air. That... is strange, to me. Liches, as written, aren't ritualists, even though it requires a ritual to turn yourself into one, and they have any ritual a GM'd like because... the power of plot compels. But that works for some people - especially, I know, for your group - which is great! It means more people are playing a game. Different from my prefrences, true, but they're playing and enjoying, which is what matters.

In summary:
"They're just trying to get the old players back" - this is bad because the old players have made it plain exactly what kind of game they want, and I know from experience that kind of game will be bad
"They're just trying to get MMO or console kids" - I can't tell why this is bad. I can think of a huge number of reasons why introducing video game design elements into an RPG would be bad but I've been playing 4E since it came out and none of them apply.

The first is not bad, it's only not your preferred style of play. The second isn't bad either, but it's someone else's preferred style of play.

(e: I can think of one thing that maybe half counts: condition and effect tracking. It's a huge pain and one area where 4E could desperately use a cleanup and you might say it's inspired by video games, where you can easily track that sort of thing because the computer does it for you. But then condition tracking isn't exactly a thing 4E introduced to D&D and I'd say on the whole it does a better job of it than 3.5 where you have effects that vary greatly in length and conditions like ability score damage that force you to recalculate your entire character sheet on the fly, which is another thing a computer can do better. So I'm listing this one for completeness and fairness' sake but insist if you let it count, it has to apply to both of those editions.)

I'm not even talking about the difference between "3.Anything" and 4E. At all. My entire point is that the attitude in this thread looks an awful lot like, "5E sux because it's not 4E" (which is the exact argument with different system numbers that occurred during the 3.X-> 4E switch, occasionally uttered by myself - it was lousy when I made it then, and it's still lousy). That's hardly a fair breakdown or discussion of the product. Coming into a conversation with your mind made up, isn't a sign of thoughtfulness: it's called "prejudice". Even though this is - in the scheme of things - very, very minor, it's still difficult to read through.

Again, I'm not saying this is your attitude. I'm saying it looks like this is your attitude. And again, I'm okay with you watching, judging, and disliking stuff. It's just the apparently-superior attitude (One more time, I'm not saying you guys do have that, I'm saying it looks like you do, and that' hurts your arguments.) with which the former comes that's frustrating.

I'm not even saying 4E has or has no clearly-from-video-games aspects, that's a whole other discussion.

Agreed, and for another time. :)

It's not generous to allow players to keep playing 4th edition while designing the edition that is basically "everything from D&D but not 4th edition hohoho we know how that turned out *wink*" Rather it's the nicest way of saying they're not going to include very much from 4th.

Alright. Let's discuss this. Why did 5E come about, and why did it come about so quickly? Because 4E isn't what Hasbro wanted it to be, and, more to the point, it was outsold by Pathfinder. Let me reiterate that: Dungeons & Dragons, which, from the inception of the RPG industry roughly 40 years ago, has always been the number one seller, has now been outsold by a company that used it's own older rules system as its base. That is a huge thing. I'm not going to discuss the difference between subscriptions, electronic sales, etc, because there's far too little information to go on for that discussion. What I'm saying is that it's an important note that the number one game in the RPG industry for the last 40 years - i.e. since the industry started - is no longer the number one game, and it's all due to them creating and going with 4E while their competitor kept with more or less the same system as before. The new system was outsold by the old system.

This is an important thing to keep in mind whenever discussing this topic. Because this is one of the primary driving facts behind 5E's upcoming existence. Not the only, by far, but one of them.

So, yes. Wizards of the Coast would be imbeciles to a) not notice that they're being outsold by a competitor who uses their older system or b) if they did notice to not do anything about it.

I'm not saying that they're doing the right thing. At all. I don't know if I'll like 5E. I've certainly soured on WotC in general due to their terrible handling of customer service and general mistreatment of me, as a fan and customer, at the time of the change. Note, that I wasn't, at that time, asking them not to change systems. I was trying to understand a new system. They more or less told me to shut up and go home. This is bad customer service.

That is in addition to the unliked and unwanted changes made to various campaign settings and - to me - less-than-optimal mechanics from 4E.

But again, that's history. I don't have a good relationship with them anymore, and even so I spent a huge amount of money on them (as the above list of books and products clearly shows) to try to have a good relationship. It didn't work out for me. So, I do hope that 5E is good. But I'm not auto-sold on it, like I was at first on 4E, "Because it's D&D." I will admit to having more than a bit of nerdrage over time, however. 'Cause that seems to be what D&D players go through, or at least many of 'em.

I'm saying all this to explain that my presence and comment in this thread is not because I'm hoping they become ever-more-3.X-like. At all. I have Pathfinder for that (though there are elements from both 3.0 and 3.5 that I like better, there are also things I like better about PF, so, you know, it's a trade-off). I'm also explaining this to clarify the tone of what I'm about to say.

(This responds to your statement, Ryong, as much as it does Meister.)

5E is a necessity for D&D, because the D&D brand, as a pencil-and-paper RPG (as opposed to board games, books, and the like), is in danger of being shut down and shelved for a few years, upwards to even a decade. For as much as I love it, Pencil and Paper RPGs are a niche market. It's not very big. Hasbro, on the other hand, is very big. They own Wizards. But they own Wizards in a peculiar way: instead of owning Wizards of the Coast in a general sort of way, they own each individual part of WotC - that is, each brand that WotC has - individually. That means that each product that WotC holds must account for it's own value to receive corporate funding, instead of WotC as a whole. If WotC was owned as a whole, it could do pretty much whatever it wants - with Hasbro's policies, it makes more than enough. But because it's sectioned off as it is, D&D - the PnP RPG - must account for itself according to Hasbro's policies. And it's not doing that.

4E was also a necessity. WotC-run D&D had this thing where their primary push was for rule-books. You know this in 3.X as all the splat books (especially the rather notorious Complete series), and in 4E the Arcane/Martial/Divine/Psionic/Etc Power 1-3 (or four? I don't recall) and so on. This means that system bloat inevitably occurs and that the rules and balance slowly (or in some cases rapidly) expand out-of-whack. Once a system reaches a certain point, under this model, it must be changed for economics reasons: the system rules have been mined to their natural conclusion, and sells will, of course, slack off. Supply-and-demand, you know.

All of this is to explain that at the end of 3.5's lifespan, the System Bloat had driven down over-all sales. People had generally acquired all the books they were likely to for the near-future, and D&D as a PnP Game brand was... well, not performing up to Hasbro's needs and expectations. As a company, Hasbro has a history of shelving properties that under-perform instead of selling them, only to bring them out later. Because of this, some of the higher-ups at D&D at the time created a great pitch to explain how D&D could become a brand that was worth it on it's own. That pitch led to the development of 4E.

Yes, I know, history is boring, but bear with me. This history lesson is important, because 4E did not meet the expectations Hasbro was promised. Hasbro invested more money due to a great pitch, allowed the system to be developed, but did not receive the expected pay-out for their investment. This was caused by a number of factors, but one of those factors, an important one, was the split in the fanbase.

While I am unsure of the current politics behind-the-scenes at WotC and Hasbro, it's very likely, given what Hasbro, as a corporation, has been in its history, that D&D is, once again, on the verge of being shelved as a product. Because of that, 5E seems to be a necessity. And yes, they're reaching out to their old fanbase because, true or not, they believe/hope that the old guard will come back and rally around them.

I don't need Mike Mearls to tell me I can just keep playing 4E, anyway. It's more about how throwing out good game design and going back to bad in the name of I don't even know what is a really stupid thing to do.

If you don't need him to tell you, allow me to repeat what was often told to me by 4E fans when I explained that I didn't like 4E mechanics: "Then play the game you like, and stop complaining, because your edition sucked". Note, I don't actually want you to stop complaining (though I'd appreciate a change in tone). This was simply what was often told to me. Fact is, you don't need him to tell you that you can. But here's the thing. He wants D&D 5E to succeed. He wants it to succeed badly. He needs to sell people on D&D for his job's sake. But is he insisting that you (or anyone) drop 4E? No. He's not. He's not hating on 4E (unlike, say, Heinsoo, who you laud below).

Haha bollocks. Quick question: what is a "final development strike team" and what was their task during development? Because I sure can't tell. More or less important than the design team that's listed right above them?

No, I can't tell you. I don't know what many teams do, although I admit that that particular title is more opaque than most.

Since you seem gung-ho to make me defend a guy's credentials in a game that's not my favorite, however, I'll do my best with a few books I grabbed off the shelf (seriously, just grabbing the most convenient ones). In no particular order:

Monster Manual 1: I can tell you that he's part of the Monster Manual Design and Monster Manual Development teams, and is one of the three lead names on the first Monster Manual (with Stephen Schubert and James Wyatt). He's also noted as being in the Final Development Strike Team, here.

Keep on the Shadowfell (the first 4E published adventure): He, with Bruce R. Cordell, made up the Adventure Design for Keep on Shadowfell (although I've got to admit, that one doesn't exactly make a case for him). This is, of course, in addition to the "Final Development Strike Team".

Manual of the Planes: He's on the Developer's team for this one, along with a bunch of others.

Eberron Player's Guide: He's on the Additional Design team for this one.

Forgotten Realms Player's Guide: He's on the Development team in this book.

Draconomicon (Chromatic Dragons): He's on the Development team in this book, too.

Dungeon Master's Guide: Dungeon Master's Guide Development team (in addition to the "strike team", of course.)

Player's Handbook 2: He's on the Design team for this book.

Player's Handbook 3: He's noted as being the "(lead)" on the Design team for the PHB3.

With a really quick Google search, from the WotC website (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Feature.aspx?x=dnd/feature/origins2012) (specifically talking about Origins Gamefair, special guests):

Mike Mearls is the Senior Manager for Dungeons & Dragons R&D. Some of his past credits include Player’s Handbook 3, Monster Manual 3, books in the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials line, as well as the Castle Ravenloft board game. He is currently involved in the design and development of the next iteration of D&D.

So, yeah, he had an awful lot of stuff in 4E before the Essentials, including the MM3 that you specified to me was a lot better than the MM1 (which he also worked on).

If any one person can be said to be the creator of 4E, it's Rob Heinsoo, the lead designer. It's quite interesting to read interviews with him (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20090313) about the design process and compare them to the kind of articles we get these days. Heinsoo doesn't shy away from naming exactly what he didn't like about D&D as it was then, how he intended to fix that, and what difficulties there were. Those are clearly stated design goals as opposed to the current policy of appeasement in promotional articles. "We're thinking of handling healing this way, oh but if you don't like how that sounds there will be other ways, don't worry."

I grant that Heinsoo is the lead designer of 4E. I never claimed otherwise. If it came off that way, I apologize, because that wasn't my intent or point. My point is that Mearls helped create (as in "was a part of"/"had one - of many - hand(s) in" the creation) 4E.

Again, I can't tell what the precise problem you're listing here except that, "Mike Mearls listens to his customers too much, and wants to design a game that's the most fun for the majority of people." which, when you get down to it, isn't much of an argument for why he's "doing it wrong". I'm not about to say that I approve of the format of the polls, or how the information is gathered - hint: I don't, as all the polls I've seen so far have been kind of dumb -, but simply citing the fact that there are polls to figure out what people want and - horror of horrors - responding to those polls, is a rather poor argument, man. It makes it look more like nerdrage about your prefered system, and less like a reasoned argument about bad poll design and information gathering.

Mearls was lead designer when Essentials rolled around, and surprise, Essentials featured martial classes without daily powers and powerful spellcasters, which old edition players had long clamored for. And it was even Mearls who had come up with the at-will/encounter/daily structure in the first place. Hell he's lead designer now and look where that's taking the game and what he writes about 4E. His lack of understanding how elements of 4E worked together and why people like it is really obvious.

Okay, first, you claim that he knew nothing about the 4E design and wasn't important to it, but you follow it up with explaining that he created the @will/encounter/daily system (something that I didn't know)? See, Meister, this is what I mean. You're knowledgeable. You're reasonable. But putting those two arguments together to explain why Mearls is a jerk isn't making your case. It's making the case that he listens to feedback.

I've explained why he's listening to feedback above. You don't have to like the man - I don't, particularly - and you don't have to like any edition other than 4E. That's fine. My entire point was: I'd much rather read your guys' arguments about why the new system sucks as reasoned responses than sarcastic hate-spam. Right now it's coming off as the latter.

What' I'm trying to say, is that I'm quite interested in these updates that you and Tev are putting up. But the current style of those updates is... unpleasant to read, to me. That's my entire point, and the only reason I mentioned Mearls' credits at all. It just seemed off, the way it seemed you're bashing the guy for "not getting" 4E - despite having been instrumental in developing it - because he's trying to respond to fans (even if I know, personally, that his information-gathering techniques have, at least in the past, kind of sucked).

Similarly, I'd like to hear Smarty's opinion - preferably without his normal mode of overdrive silliness - about 4E. But that might derail this thread, and so I'm more than willing to take it to another one to talk about the various editions, if you'd like. Heck, say the word, and I'll make that thread.

EDIT:
P.S.: I totally picked up the use of the word "Bollocks" recently. I think I'm going to blame you, Meister. :)

EDIT 2:
So, hey! Guess who just violated the new NPF policy of not responding to the "tone" (http://www.nuklearforums.com/announcement.php?f=5)? Give me an "M"! Give me an "E"! What does that spell: me. Sorry!
EDIT 3: Just to clarify, I was not aware of that new policy. Probably because I'm obtuse, unobservant, and/or haven't been here for a while. I will attempt to do better in the future.

[Meister]

... which makes it seem like it was strange that they'd up and change the system to something no one was asking for?
I most certainly asked for vast improvements on 3.5's design! It didn't work for me at all anymore. My reaction to the 4E announcement was, oh good, maybe they'll fix all this stuff I don't like, and they did, plus a million other things I'd never even registered as problems until in retrospect. I really was very pleasantly surprised.

This... really doesn't prove any point, except you're unhappy that some people, who spoke loudly, were heard.
It's really sad that 4E didn't appeal to more players, and I'd have loved to see it more universally accepted. But many elements the old school crowd is pulling for go actively against what makes D&D fun for me and are the same elements that made D&D not fun to me. (Incidentally, can I drop the "for me" qualifier for the rest of this post? I'm kind of taking it for granted that everything I say is my point of view rather than some kind of objective truth. Unless I specifically say so.) Classes built around simulating a fantasy world rather than creating a game, rules as physics of a world rather than game rules, flowery language rather than clarity in rules, that sort of thing. And here's the thing: I would have been fine with a 4E that was more in line with that while still retaining its advantages. I'm grumbling about Essentials a lot but if 4E had been like that from the start I'd probably have been fine with it because it still fixes more problems than it keeps, and maybe then the edition as a whole would have been better accepted, too. But the most vocal part of the old school crowd, the part that is being heard now, are people who insist their game can't have any 4E elements at all.

So Next is touted as the edition that brings all the players together. Great idea! Except as it turns out its design leans incredibly strongly towards editions up to 3.5 and any 4E inspirations are carefully hidden away. This isn't "everyone's invited to play D&D", it's "everyone's invited to play D&D but the 4E players have to be really quiet or the others will notice they're there."

Okay. Let's talk about this a bit. One of the reasons I don't like 4E as much as other systems is that it's not immersive, as a gaming system. Note that I'm not saying you can't role-play with it. But you can role-play with the Star Wars RPG (I mean the old d6-only one), but that's hardly an immersive system. The problem, for me, lies in the fact that nothing works like anything else. The world makes no sense. It's incoherent.
I think I've told you before that the rules are not the rules by which a fantasy world works, they're rules how a group of exceptional heroes interacts with the world, and they're most detailed in the area that needs the greatest attention to detail and is traditionally a core aspect of D&D. You prefer game rules as the literal rules of physics, politics and economics of a fantasy world. Okay, a game can be a lot of fun like that. D&D isn't that game in any edition.

The rules aren't immersive because immersion is what the players create around the table. The rules are there to efficiently resolve disputes (again, in the fields D&D traditionally concerns itself with, i.e. killing things, taking their stuff) and not get in the way of that. If any rule doesn't seem to make sense as a representation of an event in the game world, you figure out a way to make it make sense.

The problem with it being too much like a video game is, quite frankly, it's too much like a video game. If I wanted to play a video game, that's what I'd play: a video game. With it's video-game elements, 4E was trying to be too much like something it wasn't.
How is it like a video game, though? That's the part I've never had explained sufficiently. To be more precise: in what way is 4E like a video game that doesn't also apply to other editions? What kind of video game, even? And if it is indeed, why is that bad?

One of the stranger complaints I heard upthread was that 4E was transparent. Which is true! ... except where it isn't. Which is whenever the GM needs to pull something out of thin air. That... is strange, to me.
I dunno man inventing things seems like exactly the sort of thing I'd want to do more in an improvisational storytelling game set in a fantasy world.

Apart from that you're looking at the wrong aspect. The rules are transparent as game rules, it's easy to work out how they interact and what effect a power or feat has. They're not transparent or consistent as descriptions of a fantasy setting because that isn't what they're supposed to be.

It's like that old joke about reading the phone book. Sure there's an expansive cast of characters, but man, no plot at all!

My entire point is that the attitude in this thread looks an awful lot like, "5E sux because it's not 4E".
Well that is, in a way, my point, but that's an unfair reduction, and your choice of words is aimed at associating your opponents in the debate with a negative stereotype. "Next sucks because it actively refuses the design elements that made 4E good and embraces those that made earlier editions bad" may be less snappy but infinitely more accurate. Did I mention subjective? Cause that's still in full effect.

Why did 5E come about, and why did it come about so quickly? [...] And yes, they're reaching out to their old fanbase because, true or not, they believe/hope that the old guard will come back and rally around them.
Really good bit of analysis but my point is still not that it's bad they're making a new edition, it's that they're designing it badly.

If you don't need him to tell you, allow me to repeat what was often told to me by 4E fans when I explained that I didn't like 4E mechanics: "Then play the game you like, and stop complaining, because your edition sucked".
Man, what assholes. Hope you answered the way they deserved. I've told a lot of people to keep playing the edition they liked best. Why? Because what they liked about their edition were things I didn't want in my game under any circumstances.

I'll repeat that, whenever I told someone to play another game it was because what they wanted out of the game was incompatible with what I wanted.

What it tells me if the designer of a game says it, then, is sorry, I'm not going to put anything for you in here. I mean, okay, fair enough. It's just you said you would. Honestly I would much rather Mearls and his team design the game they want rather than try to please everyone - presumably that's how 4E came about so I can't hate too much on that kind of design process - but come on guys, say so from the start. Alienate a few people. If you're making a game and you tell me "you probably won't like it", I say "well I'll be the judge of that!" and check out your game, if you tell me "this is going to be super fun for everyone" and then it turns out you're making it super fun for everyone but me, I say "well fuck your game."

He's not hating on 4E (unlike, say, Heinsoo, who you laud below).
Gonna have to bring me up to speed on that one, I never heard of that.

Okay, first, you claim that he knew nothing about the 4E design and wasn't important to it, but you follow it up with explaining that he created the @will/encounter/daily system (something that I didn't know)?
Yeah I didn't make that point very well. To clarify, I'm not saying he knew nothing about the 4E design, I'm saying he doesn't understand what makes 4E good. A guy can come up with one aspect of a game that improves the game and still not get the whole thing. (e: or maybe it's more accurate to say he has a different idea of what makes 4E good than its players - but then he's not doing a very good job of listening to them, and "we listened to the players" is supposed to be Next's big selling point.)

What makes 4E good is the transparency and clarity of rules, their interaction and the way mechanical concepts carry over across different aspects of the game. Class balance, character roles and the divide between mechanics of an event/description of that event help. But mostly it's the way they fit together and interact, and the current designers seem to believe you can transfer any single aspect of a game into a new edition and it'll automatically work fine.

Take class design right now. They gave the wizard Vancian spellcasting. Oh how 4E players complained about that one, how can you go back to Vancian when At-Will/Encounter/Daily is so much more elegant etc. Same way a lot of older players complain about Daily powers. It's both bullshit. Either way is fine, but you have to design the rest of the system accordingly. Saying "this class will have Daily powers" doesn't mean a thing, but the designers believe it does.

That's the issue I have with this "something for everyone" design approach. They want to put in everything so no one feels left out, but any one rules element might work well, differently or not at all depending on what the others are. Look at the recent poll where they literally asked "what spells are iconic for the wizard" and gave people a list with spell names and no indication whatsoever how a spell would work. That's taking feedback, sure, but that feedback will be completely useless, and it's their design approach in a nutshell.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You guys wrote a lot of words but none of you have addressed the crippling forcification of exchange value over use value in 4th ed which drives up a non-identity between identity and non-identity as compared to the more ontologically postive acknowledgement of use values in 3rd ed and whether 5th ed will address this riven state or not.

In addition this is what people mean by videogamery- internally they sense the heaving disenfranchisement and alienation from the value of true but thanks to years of brainwashing posing a education they are unable to properly ape out the true sense of their destruction. And then they are mocked by agents of cultural capital with their fallabites cast as inherent flaws in their arguments when they only serve as proof of their very argument for if they were wrong such fallabilites would not be manifest. For shame.

[tacticslion]

Hey, just dropping some linkage (http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/315975-wizards-coast-dungeons-dragons-insider-d-d-4th-edition-hasbro-some-history.html) all up in here about the history of 4E stuff.

I'm interested in responding to stuff, but time... well, despite the song, she's not really on my side today. But a very interesting post, Meister!

One short note, Meister: yeah, sorry about the Heinsoo bit, that was me misinterpreting what you were saying when you were talking about Heinsoo, and then writing poorly such that it looks like I said Heinsoo hates 4E. Point is, Heinsoo doesn't hate 4E. He didn't like elements of previous systems and named the reasons he didn't like those things.

Smarty, as I've no time to bother parsing your extremely long words (feel consider me a non-intellectual, or "casual" reader for this purpose), I'd prefer if you re-posted with a more concise, yet explanatory post detailing your position. kthnxbai!

EDIT:
A brief note linking to a list (http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/315187-wizards-coasts-annual-xmas-layoffs-11.html) of who, precisely, is left from the original 4E Teams. Hint: it's not much. Found this and thought it might be interesting.

[Meister]

Elaborating on two things that I should have elaborated upon the first time.

The rules aren't immersive because immersion is what the players create around the table. The rules are there to efficiently resolve disputes (again, in the fields D&D traditionally concerns itself with, i.e. killing things, taking their stuff) and not get in the way of that.
The rules are supposed to not get in the way of players creating their own immersion. By that I mean, they're not supposed to bog you down with unnecessary details. When you want to include a lich villain, and you have to figure out exactly what a wizard has to do in order to become a lich, build that villain accordingly, and 90% of it never comes up during the period of time he interacts with the party, or maybe some part of it goes against what you envisioned for your lich villain, that's the rules getting in the way. You could have used that prep time for something exciting.

e: let's stick with your example for a second. The lich's writeup doesn't mention anything about ritual casting. However there's a ritual described as the way to become a lich. That exact situation came up in my game. What did I do? I placed the ritual as loot in the lich's personal notes in his library. Stop for a second and see that from the players' perspective. You explore the lich's dungeon. You encounter the lich himself - oh no! After a hard fight you destroy him. But how did he become such an undead abomination in the first place? Maybe his notes give you some clue - ah yes, there's a mysterious evil ritual. That must be it.

It doesn't make a difference to the players whether the lich has a way, in the written mechanics, to cast that ritual. Of course he must have - there's the ritual in his notes! Unless they consistently try and figure out how everything they encounter works in terms of game mechanics, and whenever they catch the DM contradicting the rules as written they get a point, in which case they're playing a very different game from the D&D I imagine.

And also, why not let things like that inspire you? The lich can't cast rituals (and I'd like to note here, that's only true if you let it be, lots of room for additions in pencil in a statblock)? There must be another, even more sinister way to become a lich!

I've told a lot of people to keep playing the edition they liked best.
And I did it in the same tone as I'd expect a 3.5 player, if I came to him with my ideas of what a fun game is, to tell me I'd be better off with 4E.

[Ryong]

So, there was a new playtest avaliable today.

I'm not a fan of spell slots but yeah, whatever. Not a whole lot of healing, still, but at least the fighter and the rogue have some options to not get hurt...Except that there's the whole advantage/disadvantage system still goes 1 advantage gets nulled by 10 disadvantages and vice-versa. Also, fuck I wish they used yards or meters.

Fighters get a fuckton of non-choices because they learn fighting styles easily enough so that by 5th level they have like 10 different things to do with their expertise die and you can do 2 of them - and this isn't like an attack with a shitty bonus like in 3.5e - so suddenly you have a clusterfuck of actions happening on the fighter's turn.

Interesting how they managed to make fighters have more options than other classes.

For those wondering why am I not talking about things outside of combat: I still have to test the healing and the skills are basically a haze of "shit we'll define later" currently so I'll talk about what's possible to talk about.

Edit: Gonna read 'bout equipment now.

Hey, you know these damage types, piercing, slashing and bludgeoning that showed up last playtest? We're still not telling you what they mean mechanically!

Also, unrelated to that: Man, I liked having my set of defenses instead of rolling to defend against a bunch of magical effects and such.

[Meister]

Oh great now I have to track that down and give it a go before I can rail against it any more.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Man back in my day if you wanted to become a lich you had to devour 100 pureblooded babies at the moment of conception and then wash each of them down with a tankard of unicorn tears before dying by the very own evil that wrought you. Now you can just cast some namby pamby ritual. Truly a tragic occurence.

[Meister]

Who says that isn't what the ritual is :crossarms:

Granted if it's one of those with one hour casting time you might have to cram the eating in there but that just makes it the Evillest Hot Dog Eating Contest and I fail to see how that isn't an improvement.

[Ryong]

Who says that isn't what the ritual is :crossarms:

Granted if it's one of those with one hour casting time you might have to cram the eating in there but that just makes it the Evillest Hot Dog Eating Contest and I fail to see how that isn't an improvement.

and you won't have an indigestion because you'll be unDEAD.

[Nikose Tyris]

"Sorry, your ritual fails; you only ate 97 babies."
"DAMN IT!"

[Meister]

Didn't take Skill Focus: Eat a baby? Well you can't be the lich.

[Locke cole]

You could eat 50 babies and become a Demilich instead...

[Tev]

Well, after a quick perusal of the new play-test packet, it seems that obnoxiously long skill lists are back with a vengeance. Twenty five skills, a quarter of which are pointlessly listed "Lore:_______" as well as a decoupling of your basic Thievery skill into all of its component parts. I always felt that excessive skill lists were silly in D&D. I much preferred the very optional non-weapon proficiency table from 2nd Ed and the much abbreviated skill list from 4th.

While everyone seems happy that the Combat Superiority option for the Fighter exists, there's already complaints that it doesn't go far enough in the right areas to make it worth the development space. Getting an extra CS die every five levels seems like a hella slow progression. Also the locked in specialties seem underwhelming right now, but play-testing will have to be done to see how it goes.

Rogues get Thieves Cant as a class feature now, which means something useful got bumped from their list for something that only matters if the DM makes in matter on the non-combat side of things. I hope it didn't suck up too many development points from the Rogue's total.

Apparently Katanas are the new Intoxicated for this play-test. As a two-handed weapon that functions 100% like a bastard sword except for the bonus of being "Finessable," expect to see unstoppable parties of samurai swordsmen and drunken wizards for weeks to come.

On the plus side, we do get blank character sheets and rules to make character up to level five. On the negative side, it seems random dice-rolls for stats is going to be the Core model. They also kinda fudged things in the hit point section to allow people to just use an "average number increase" approach to the "roll each level and pray you don't get a one" method. They kept it obscure though so as not to tip off people that it's just like how 4th Ed did hit points.

I'll toss up some more stuff later once I get a chance to read things over more thoroughly.

[Meister]

Gonna quote this from another forum since it's pretty much how I've felt about Next so far:
The most frustrating thing here is that the most recent playtest packet indicates that Next is really just going to be 3.5.5 Edition. It's not objectively horrible like FATAL or some of the other bizarre shit in the FATAL thread, but it's just so depressingly mediocre that I don't even want to touch it. The playtest really feels like Mearls and co. are trying their hardest to put a fresh spin on 3.X but that is totally not what I want to play, so I'm pretty bummed with the direction they decided to take Next. I wouldn't even care that it was different from 4E if it was different in a way that seemed to be an improvement, but this just looks like a total retread of something I already don't enjoy.

[Locke cole]

And if you did want to play 3.5+, there's been Pathfinder already.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You won't find a bigger hater of 4th than me and I am a big 3.5 fan but I dont need a 3.5.5- we've got 3.5 and we play that and it beenlong enough that we modded it till our liking. If you're gong to make a new edition, make a new edition not 4+ or 3.5+ but 5.

[Ryong]

Yeah Tev, I was bummed out on the damage for fighters but come a playtest with my usual group I think I'll just parry all the time.

[Meister]

Another insightful post from somewhere else:
Well, as I'm understanding it, they're still trying to solve a problem with this edition, but that problem has nothing to do with the game, but with the audience they feel they lost over the last two editions. "The group we believe we should belong to doesn't like us, so what must we do to pander to them?"

In news, apparently a Future of D&D keynote speech happened. They want to make the entire back catalog of D&D products from all editions available in electronic format. As long as it's DRM-free and not bound to a specific software/account this is excellent news. As for Next, they anticipate two years of development and will add the sorcerer and warlock to the playtest today or tomorrow. Vagueness mine, timezones, you know.

Also something or other about Forgotten Realms, here is what I think about Forgotten Realms: t:mad:

e: mind you I'm not actually expecting DRM-free PDFs, more something like a subscription-based Silverlight interface that gives you 72 dpi black-and-white scans with fingers at the edges.

[Tev]

e: mind you I'm not actually expecting DRM-free PDFs, more something like a subscription-based Silverlight interface that gives you 72 dpi black-and-white scans with fingers at the edges.I'm not sure they can continue to use Silverlight much longer as Microsoft is supposedly giving up on it.

[Meister]

With their track record in tech supplements so far I'm not so sure that would keep them from doing it.

[Tev]

The latest Legends & Lore (http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120821) article talks about the fruits of "months" of work trying to develop Sorcerers and Warlocks for DDN. Highlights are as follows:

-Unlike what was asked for and hoped for by the player community, Sorcerers and Warlocks will not be just like Wizards but with different caster options other than Vancian casting.

-Sorcerers now have some kind of "second alien soul" flavor baked in that is made manifest in a Willpower Point system. Spend too many points casting spells and you become a horrid monster and some Wizard will come and steal your liver. (I'm not making this up.)
Evil wizards have no compunction with capturing sorcerers, experimenting on them, and eventually harvesting their organs for magical potions and other items.
-Warlocks start out innocent enough, until they go all Rain Man over a particular bit of lost lore and end up making deals with cosmic beings for power which is made manifest in some sort of Encounter Power system wherein you beseech your benefactor hourly for powers. I hope you made it happy last combat because it may just let you rot this time around. Also, Wizards think you smell funny.
Wizards regard warlocks as meddlers, thieves, and dangerous renegades. They practice magic without concern for the consequences their actions might bring about. Some wizardly academies go so far as to seek out and destroy the books that warlocks seek. There are some secrets, a wizard may tell you, that are better off kept secret.

This is the best write-up I've read about the classes all day:
So... A Sorcerer is a brilliant young man who never went to college yet is very successful in life due to his own natural abilities. The Warlock is the guy who earned an associate’s degree and went on to land a pretty sweet middle management job. The Wizard is the guy who went to University AND Graduate School but focused on some topic that has zero relevance to the business world. So instead of admitting he wasted 8 years of his life, the Wizard writes a blog about how "feral and chaotic" the Sorcerer is and how the Warlock "accepted deals with the Devil" to get to where he is. All the while, the Wizard is living in his mom's basement pulling down an unemployment check.

That is how I interpreted the clearly biased article.


But yeah, we wanted Sorcerers and Warlocks to be "Wizards without Vancian casting." What we got were bad trap options that don't play out as well as the Wizard. Using the playtest packet, someone on the WoTC forums did the math and it turns out that by the time you reach "high level" gaming, the Wizard has access to higher level spells, has higher Save DCs, and has far far less stupid baked in flavor issues preventing him from doing things.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Man I'm going back to Warhammer Quest- that shit was ace.

[Meister]

Oh boy, the only thing I like better than having bits in the rules that tell me how a player of one class has to treat one of the other is when it's "with hostility and contempt," and when the mechanics back him up.

[Tev]

Yeah, I'm still wracking my brain trying to sort out how the imperative to give the players casting options other than Vancian became "Here, have some spell points or something, except enjoy a smaller spell list, weaker power, and a horrible evil monster transformation when you run out of juice!" and "Here, pretend you're a Cleric, but your god is really a jerk instead of a god. Also those Wizards over there hate you and want to ruin everything you care about because while they had to study all day long, you got a tutor and some cliff-notes."

Would it have been so hard to just go "Hey some people like Vancian Wizards. Done. Now, lets build a AEDU caster and maybe a person that runs on Force of Will casting through hit-points or spell points or whatever." and be done with it? Did it really require months of work to come up with shitty ways to make Sorcerers and Warlock a worse option that Wizards?

[Ryong]

"Here, pretend you're a Cleric, but your god is really a jerk instead of a god. Also those Wizards over there hate you and want to ruin everything you care about because while they had to study all day long, you got a tutor and some cliff-notes."

"Also, you may have gotten HPV. Your tutor's kind of a jerk."

[Tev]

"Also, you may have gotten HPV. Your tutor's kind of a jerk."Yeah, I totally forgot about the warts...