Agreed. It felt like what you'd get if you tried to take the early rules and make them work with D20 mechanics. I'm hoping they continue to keep things simple. That seems to be the goal based on the stuff on their blog and the few interviews I've seen with Mearls.
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 14, 2012 13:31:45 GMT -6
I am loving everything about the new D&D rules. I haven't been this excited about D&D since...well, okay, since they announced they were reprinting first edition. But I haven't been this excited about a NEW EDITION since they first announced 3.0 back in 99 or 00.
I don't understand what a "laser cleric" is. I don't think WotC does either. It's a subclass that is really nothing like it's parent. I guess the analogy is:
battle cleric is to laser cleric, as wizard is to battle mage. I.E. both classes have a sliding scale on how "magical" and how "martial" the class could concievably be, but for whatever reason (going back to specialty priests in 2e) all clerics outside of the generic tend to be a overpowered and have too many special abilities.
Mearls and team is obviously struggling with this. The original clerics spells were really out of combat abilities, but the 5e battle cleric is more spell caster than fighter....but so is the laser cleric! a hot mess. The cleric is the most "video gamey" character so far. A far cry from the warrior who gave up swords and some combat prowress for the ability to turn undead and create some food and water.
5e so far has a battle mage and two wizard classes, but no cleric.
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 21, 2012 22:15:43 GMT -6
I've had a skim over some of the new play test material too... at a superficial level it still appears to me much like a merger of D&D's Basic and 4E incarnations.
One thing that struck me as a neat idea is the "side effects" that a warlock suffers for memorising spells -- that's potentially a cool idea for all magic-users
I'm sure they will wind up with a fine game, but it doesn't appear to me that 5E will recapture the "spirit" of earlier editions of D&D.
Why not? Because long lists of "capabilities" and "options" that are added to PCs puts the focus on the "PC Build" sub-game. It means players have to be across all the possible options before they can make an informed choice about any option. That's great for selling lots of books full of options, but the poor referee has to be across all the possible options for all the possible player classes and for all the monsters too! All that reading is ultimately a barrier to entry for new players.
Why, for example, do we need two and half pages of text to tell us what a dwarf is? OD&D has... what, just one paragraph?
The "PC Build" sub-game is a fundamentally different thing to the "exploration/problem solving" game of the earliest editions. Sure, they can both work and be good fun in their own way, but they do push different buttons.
I had hoped WotC would strip the 5E core rules right back to an absolutely minimal game, and put all the extra "stuff" into optional supplementary material. But I don't really see it happening that way...
I'm not liking the rogue as presented. The scheme idea is awkward and I cannot find any reference to picking pockets. I can see myself just making a standard rogue and not using the options in the book. The rest of it is OK but is beginning to remind me of D&D Essentials. While not a bad thing it was not what I was expecting to see. Overall I am still happy with what I am seeing I am just wondering why they chose to include what they did.
As an aside, I see some things that will be used in my C&C game, mainly how ability checks work and backgrounds should be easily adaptable.
Last Edit: Aug 26, 2012 15:41:50 GMT -6 by Mr. Darke
I'm just not seeing how some can play a AD&D-type fighter while some else plays a 4th edition-style one - same with the other classes as well.
Am I just missing something?
I don't think it will happen this way at the same game table.
I've always interpreted this statement as the same core rules could be used to simulate more than one edition so that I mght run a 4E-style game while you might run an AD&D-style game by using different add-on rules.
It doesn't make sense the other way because the power scales are so clearly incompatible unless you could blend a 3rd level 4E MU with a 9th level AD&D fighter, for example. I suppose that someone could come up with a true power rating to allow some mix-and-match, or totally re-do the XP charts so that 10,000 XP might be equal for all editions even if it would mean new levels.
Just a thought.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) S&W WhiteBox author (2009) C&C playtester (2003) Builder of the TrollBridge for T&T; Amber Diceless player since 1993 OD&D Player since 1975; Metamorphosis Alpha since 1976
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
The way I see it, it looks like 5E is set up so that a DM can run a campaign based on many flavors of D&D. If he wants to run a 0E or 1E game, he just uses the classes. If he wants to run a game that feels more like 2E he can include the backgrounds, which function very much like the kits from 2E. If he wants to have a more modern feel to his game then he can include specialties, which are feat trees.
The problem is that the DM needs to be very firm about what he wants to run. If he wants a game that feels like 1E and a player wants to run a character with background and specialties, he needs to be able to tell the player "no." Many DMs that I've seen tend to cave when the players whine about "it's in the rules."