|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 23, 2013 12:24:40 GMT -6
So I haven't posted in a while, but I'm back. I've had my foray into the world of later editions of D&D, and suffice it to say I remembered why I started playing OD&D. I've lately run a very AD&D styled game at my local gaming store, and then played in a 3.5 game, and I can clearly say that mechanics can, and do get in the way of having fun. With AD&D not so much, but I definitely see it as a different game, even if there are compatibilities; that is while I will continue to use material from AD&D in my OD&D campaigns, I will no longer try and whole sale mix the two games into one super-system.
Anyway on to the real subject of this post, I just had the chance to make a character for D&D NEXT for a friends upcoming campaign. Frankly I can't tell if I'm flabbergasted at their audacity, or just plain disinterested in what we all already new. While this is an OD&D board, and I know we all mostly play OD&D, I know many of us also play other versions of TSR-era D&D. I also know that it is highly improbable, if not impossible, for WOTC to have not studied the OSR, retro-clones, and various retro-gaming blogs. If I may, let me share with you some of the obvious inclusions in NEXT that have been heavily "borrowed" from the old school gaming community.
At the core of it D&D NEXT is essentially B/X D&D with the classes from AD&D. This is something people in the old school community have been admitting to doing for decades. WOTC is just now formalizing what we've been doing for ages. Even in the OD&D community, tons of people have written up conversions for including the AD&D classes in their games. In fact I don't remember who, but one of the OSR bloggers even commented that WOTC is probably scared of B/X because it is the most successful and widely played version of D&D.
"Proficiencies" - The name alone harkens back to the AD&D system from the Wilderness Guide (IIRC), and the formalized 2E skill system. Further it functions almost exactly like class abilities from Castles & Crusades, but perhaps expanded upon. Characters have a proficiency bonus (determined) by level, which adds to a d20 roll to perform special actions and abilities, also generally determined by class or background. This proficiency bonus includes attack rolls with proficient weapons (once again a throw back to AD&D weapon proficiencies). In fact from what I can recall the bonus progression caps at a +6, just like OD&D (really S&W if you use AAC).
Including Feats from 3rd Edition is also something several people in the OSR have done. Off the top of my memory I know Delta (the blogger) has a set of house rules out with a few selected feats for his OD&D game. I'm not positive, but I think there was even a set of feats somewhere on here. Another OD&D variant game (well S&W variant) Blood & Treasure includes feats, and I know that's not the only second wave clone to do so. My game Arcane Adventures included feat-like abilities.
Attribute Based Saving Throws are another "borrowed" item from Castles & Crusades, if not other games. You're class determines a set of attributes to use for saving throws, or something along those lines. Sounds very similar to Primes to me.
This is a very small one, but further proof that there either reading our blogs, or coming to the same conclusions we are. "Finesse" which was a feat in 3E D&D that allowed you to add your dexterity bonus to melee attacks, is now a function of specific weapons - no need to waste character abilities on it. I don't remember what blog suggested it, but the author said the exact thing: he questioned why a player could not just specify they were using their rapier in a fencing style to the same effect. In fact in my rules it's listed as a function of certain weapons.
I haven't read the rules all the way through, and this was all gleamed just through a cursory glance during character creation. I wonder what everyone else thinks of NEXT. Personally I was so bewildered by the positive uproar everyone at the store was showing it. Not to say it doesn't deserve it; but I've been pointing out these things for the last couple of years. I guess I'm just thinking: "Yeah that's great, where have you been?"
So what are you're thoughts on NEXT? Or am I being a grumpy young grognard?
|
|
|
|
Post by funkaoshi on Oct 23, 2013 14:55:04 GMT -6
I've played it a few times now. I like it. I think it'll be good for new players. It's much more straight forward to explain than any of the earlier versions of the game, I'd say. (And you can ignore some of the extra bits, like feats, to keep things even simpler.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Oct 23, 2013 15:08:21 GMT -6
Heh. Indeed. I think you're dead-on that they've been paying close attention to the Old School Ruckus and its associated successes, small as they may be from a global financial perspective. It's no secret that some of those heavily involved in the development are big fans of earlier editions and modes of play. So yeah, to those of us who've been around for awhile, NEXT mostly seems to be a return to roots more than anything. I don't know how successful their initial "modular style-of-play" philosophy is going to be, but at least in the last playtest document I looked it, it seemed like you could strip out detail without damaging anything. It's always hard for me to remember, however, that there are TONS of players out there who started with Type III or IV; to them, I imagine, it's going to look like a very different game. And if it helps bring in new players coupled with an "official" appreciation of the game's history (via reprints and D&D Classics PDFs), I'm all for it. Oh, and welcome back!  |
|
joseph
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 142 
|
D&D NEXT
Oct 23, 2013 15:52:17 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by joseph on Oct 23, 2013 15:52:17 GMT -6
Greetings,
I have been involved in the open playtest for a little more than a year now and have seen the game go from very loose to more complex. I have not yet upgraded to the newest and last packet (version 10), but I can say that the inclusion of Feats complicates the characters quite bit...luckily it has been made completely optional which is nice.
One of the influences you didn't mention - the Backgrounds - which are extremely similar to 2E kits. I like the mechanic quite a bite, and I like that they are not restricted to certain classes. The last character I played was a Monk (obviously asian inspired as has been its history), but I took the Priest background, and the Healing Initiate specialty (which granted access to some very minor healing spells.... suddenly he was a western, Friar Tuck type fighting monk...very cool. I love that the classes are adaptable like that.
Hoping that the finished product is well built and designed and we see some nice old school art as well!
|
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Oct 23, 2013 19:01:25 GMT -6
In fact I don't remember who, but one of the OSR bloggers even commented that WOTC is probably scared of B/X because it is the most successful and widely played version of D&D. Well I'm not sure if it was the '81 or '83 set which was the biggest seller, but of course it should be pointed out that it WAS the most widely played version. But it hasn't been for almost 30 years. So I don't think WotC is "scared" of it anymore than Barack Obama is "scared" of Jimmy Carter. Maybe WotC swiped some things from the OSR, but of course the OSR swiped a hell of a whole lot more via the OGL. So I'm gonna let them slide on that. That being said, I agree with you about D&D Next. I think it's gonna be pretty cool, and occupy a night niche between Basic and Advanced D&D. I hope they release a complete basic game that I can buy and never have to buy anything else. In fact it'd be great if all the other "modules" like feats were in some other book I could ignore. I'm more worried about the stylistic tone to be honest. I got a notice they released a new adventure about a dragon lich. Nope, a dragon isn't sweet enough, a lich won't cut it, let's make it a dracolich! It's like the Mountain Dew of gaming, the same kind of over the top mentality that brought us "Sharknado". If I open the book and see some understated, atmospheric art featuring dungeoneers wearing backpacks and carrying 10' pole, i'll be happy. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 23, 2013 23:43:26 GMT -6
In fact it'd be great if all the other "modules" like feats were in some other book I could ignore. This is the 5E I'd pay $ for. I'm more worried about the stylistic tone to be honest. I got a notice they released a new adventure about a dragon lich. Nope, a dragon isn't sweet enough, a lich won't cut it, let's make it a dracolich! The Munchkin Factor... it would be nice to see a sprinkling of completely fresh monsters instead... |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 24, 2013 4:36:48 GMT -6
I ran 8 or 9 sessions..most early in the playtest, the most recent, the August packet. About 35-40 hours or so.
Overall, as it is right now? No thank you. I had a big rambling post typed up but felt it was over the top negative for me, and these boards. Ultimately there is nothing 5e does better than previous editions, and it doesnt really account for every edition's strengths, it more often than not takes on the goofiness (subclasses, prestige classes, damage on a miss, lame combat options and large stat blocks for monsters, etc). Imitation Vanilla watered down 3.x D&D is how I would describe it.
Not to mention games like DCC already do a much better job of utilizing a light d20 framework with simple but excellent alternate mechanical takes on D&D staples (turning, healing, combat stunts, etc.). Any OD&D framework can do what 5e does with some simple houserules for that matter, and is far more compatible with the wealth of OSR and TSR product available.
In addition they are doing things on the branding/story/lore aspect with 5e that totally does not jive with me.
I will wait for the final product before final judgement.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 24, 2013 12:32:26 GMT -6
Oh, and welcome back! Thanks for the warm welcome everyone One of the influences you didn't mention - the Backgrounds - which are extremely similar to 2E kits. I like the mechanic quite a bite, and I like that they are not restricted to certain classes. The last character I played was a Monk (obviously asian inspired as has been its history), but I took the Priest background, and the Healing Initiate specialty (which granted access to some very minor healing spells.... suddenly he was a western, Friar Tuck type fighting monk...very cool. I love that the classes are adaptable like that. I'm surprised I missed the kit's throwback to 2E, because I just grabbed a copy of the Complete Fighter's Handbook for my wife. Good eye. Also I love what you did with the monk, I really wish that was the standard, what with D&D being a medieval styled game after all. I'm more worried about the stylistic tone to be honest. I got a notice they released a new adventure about a dragon lich. Nope, a dragon isn't sweet enough, a lich won't cut it, let's make it a dracolich! It's like the Mountain Dew of gaming, the same kind of over the top mentality that brought us "Sharknado". If I open the book and see some understated, atmospheric art featuring dungeoneers wearing backpacks and carrying 10' pole, i'll be happy. I've noticed this to be the biggest difference between our style of gaming, and modern gaming. It's the hardest thing to explain to 3.x players getting involved in my game: You can't be a werewolf-demi-lich-vampire-half/dragon PC, and you certainly shouldn't have a +6 to hit and damage at level 1. In fact I've noticed it's this attitude more than anything that ruins games like Pathfinder/3.X for me. I notice it really doesn't come from the rules, so much as the artwork and aesthetic of the game; players relate it to over the top fantasy and anime. Fortunately from what I've seen of the art (a friend of mine is keeping tabs on 5E very seriously) it seems to be more old school; just in full color and very touched up. Overall, as it is right now? No thank you. I had a big rambling post typed up but felt it was over the top negative for me, and these boards. Ultimately there is nothing 5e does better than previous editions, and it doesnt really account for every edition's strengths, it more often than not takes on the goofiness (subclasses, prestige classes, damage on a miss, lame combat options and large stat blocks for monsters, etc). Imitation Vanilla watered down 3.x D&D is how I would describe it. It's funny, so did I. In fact I surprised myself by not blogging about it yet. I will say this though; I completely agree with you, and I feel D&D NEXT suffers a very bad case of multiple personality disorder. The biggest reason I haven't switched too it (despite demand at my FLGS), and the biggest reason I won't unless it is largely revised: it's not actually compatible with anything yet. When I made my game I made sure to use a base set of stats for everything: Armor Class, Attack Rolls, Hit Dice, etc... For monsters and for players. This meant it was very easy for me to either use material from TSR games with almost no conversion; or convert later material on the fly since I knew what I was converting it to. It seems NEXT's formulas and vital information were conjured from thin air. While it may be internally balanced, I don't see me being able to use most D&D material (TSR or WOTC) without heavy consideration or conversion. I may be wrong, but the fact their presentation does nothing to make me feel otherwise, means they've failed in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 24, 2013 13:38:22 GMT -6
I enjoyed my Next playtests quite a bit, but mostly as a player and not as a GM.
My problem is simply: "Does Next improve upon anything I already play?" (E.g. "is it better than OD&D, C&C, DCC, or 13th Age?") My honest answer has to be "not really."
It's fun, but not any better than other options I already play.
________________________
BY THE WAY -- I'll be moving this to "other editions" soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkaoshi on Oct 24, 2013 13:42:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Oct 24, 2013 14:02:10 GMT -6
I’m not familiar with 3e or 4e, so I may be missing some perspective, but there is a LOT of lingo in 5e that I don’t recognize. I just looked at the Fighter class. Action Surge? Martial Paths? Advanced Maneuvers? It all seems so technical. Why do they get to increase ability scores when they level — what happened to magic pools and tomes? And, how is all this less complex than AD&D, exactly? How is this “essentially B/X”?
Anyway, I’m sure 5e will be an okay game… I’m just skeptical about how many people will switch to it, at this point. WotC can’t go on making new editions forever. The more they do it, the more disunited and disloyal the fanbase becomes. I would have thought their best strategy at this point is to be good stewards of the previous editions.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 24, 2013 14:08:44 GMT -6
I’m not familiar with 3e or 4e, so I may be missing some perspective, but there is a LOT of lingo in 5e that I don’t recognize. I just looked at the Fighter class. Action Surge? Martial Paths? Advanced Maneuvers? It all seems so technical. Why do they get to increase ability scores when they level — what happened to magic pools and tomes? And, how is all this less complex than AD&D, exactly? How is this “essentially B/X”? Anyway, I’m sure 5e will be an okay game… I’m just skeptical about how many people will switch to it, at this point. WotC can’t go on making new editions forever. The more they do it, the more disunited and disloyal the fanbase becomes. I would have thought their best strategy at this point is to be good stewards of the previous editions. Yeah it's mostly 3e/4e talk. And while I agree it's no better than AD&D, its based off of B/X. So much of the early discussion on the game was basically: "Were going to take Basic D&D and add a bunch of stuff on top of it..." Which is exactly what they've done. Personally I wish WOTC would do exactly what you're talking about. In fact in a perfect world they'd go to the people making OSRIC, S&W, LL, Pathfinder, etc... and go "Here you're now officially making D&D retroclones through us". However Hasbro would never let that happen. My problem is simply: "Does Next improve upon anything I already play?" (E.g. "is it better than OD&D, C&C, DCC, or 13th Age?") My honest answer has to be "not really." It's fun, but not any better than other options I already play. ________________________ BY THE WAY -- I'll be moving this to "other editions" soon. Me sentiments exactly. For me it's a bit personal because I've been running a playtest of my houserules there, and everyone tells me "Oh it's just like NEXT!, you should run that instead!". Well I've been working on my rules long before NEXT was announced, and quite frankly it doesn't do anything better. I've honestly switched back to S&W WhiteBox recently. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2013 14:20:07 GMT -6
What Fin and Jak have said. 5E looks... Shallow. My personal guess is, it will be "white flag" edition: This will be the video game and RPGA variant of D&D, while the main sales of the brand will even more rely come from nostalgia-based products, and re-editions, with the fan community essentially being supported by 3rd party publishers. As in, companies like TLG, Paizo, and even Monte Cook Games have always understood the fans' desires better than WotC. This is going to increase, as 5e is quite obviously not hitting the mark of what people are looking for, despite Wizbro's best efforts.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Oct 26, 2013 15:01:04 GMT -6
The latest wizard I think is great. You can memorize as many spells as you have levels +1 from any spell level, and your # of spells per level is how many spells you can cast.
3rd level MU can memorize 4 spells and has 2/1 spell per day to translate that into 0d&d. This is a nice balance of vancian magic plus free casting (without being able to free cast your whole spell book).
Scroll and potion making is also pretty darn good. You can have as many spell levels in scrolls has you have levels/2. So a 6th level mu can have a 3rd level scroll or a scroll with three 1st level spells.
Pretty nice rules actually. I especially like the nod to 3rd level being the beginning of heroic play where 1st and 2nd level characters are quite weak--an improvement of 4e's 1st level characters being "heroes".
Great rules on "flattening" the game. All magic weapons are only +1 (and are all unique--a nod to intelligent swords) and 20th level fighters only have like a +6 to hit or something. Really keeps the number inflation down.
Advantage/disadvantage system is also great. Even if you play 0d&d there are worthwhile rules to steal. Especially the exploration rules in dungeons like being able to vary the speed of mapping and how that effects surprise and if someone is actively "keeping watch". Great stuff. They just need to reintroduce "chases in the dungeon" mechanics as a mini game.
Also the XP chart looks pretty good to me as well. aaaaand...."arcane traditions" is the best set of rules for wizard specialization in d&d to date. For example charm person normally lasts 1 hour, but if you are an enchanter then it lasts 1 day and at 20th level an enchanter can make it permanent as long as he forgoes three 1st level spells while the charm is in effect. Brilliant and makes a charm person cast by a specialist wizard much more powerful than a charm person cast by a necromancer.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Nov 13, 2013 8:06:45 GMT -6
I don't have a great deal to add except that so far I dig almost everything about D&D Next. They really fixed what they screwed up with 4e. D&D feels like D&D again in this, and still manages to remove a lot of the arcane complexity and option bloat of 3.x. Advantage/Disadvantage, as cooper said, is outstanding. I already think we'll houserule it to allow an additional level of advantage/disadvantage, capping at 3 dice instead of 2.
My only issue with the arcane traditions is that they're required. I don't like that you can no longer be a generalist magic user. That being said, the traditions themselves are pretty uber cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Nov 13, 2013 8:49:00 GMT -6
Huh. I don't think that would've occurred to me--adopted! You and coop are giving me hope... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 10:03:31 GMT -6
My personal guess is, it will be "white flag" edition: This will be the video game and RPGA variant of D&D, while the main sales of the brand will even more rely come from nostalgia-based products, and re-editions, with the fan community essentially being supported by 3rd party publishers. I see this as the intellectual property edition. Somethings that's kinda like D&D of old yet sorta modern that will sit on the shelves for decades in order to protect Hasbro's rights to all things D&D. The money will be made in books and (hopefully good) video games. This is a good thing IMO. D&D has passed on into a legacy product like Monopoly or Risk. Something that will always be there. Like Ford's 2013 Mustang, it is new but still kinda looks like the original classic version we all know and expect. Hopefully, the days of Hasbro trying to "fix" D&D have finally passed. |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Nov 13, 2013 10:20:39 GMT -6
I have not played. I have read a good bit about it. Sounds like "Bigger! Better! More! (but only if you want it that way)" edition. It could go very well. It could go very very wrong too. It is in open beta. WotC is trying to listen to what players want. They have to be very selective. Not all player ideas are good ones. Whatever the case, it hopefully will be designed well enough that players can play in the style they are most comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Nov 13, 2013 13:20:23 GMT -6
Update- the last packet, October, was an improvement, IMO. I do not care for all the additional races and classes, but they have done a good job with the classic 4 classes, races, and nailing down a few things like skills that were going all over the place.
Sitting back, and taking a breath, and going over the final playtest packet has made me less critical. It looks like a decent attempt at keeping things quick and easy at the table, while giving players more options. I do wish they would utilize some better monstercombat mechanics to make things more interesting. Adopting something like 13th Ages X happens on a Even d20 attack roll, and Y happens on a odd D20 attack roll would keep things simple.yet offer some variety from round to round..especially when it comes to differentiating the fighting ability/style of goblinoids, kobolds,.orcs, gnolls etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Nov 14, 2013 7:44:25 GMT -6
They need to apply advantage/disadvantage more consistently across the board. It should really be used for almost everything, it's such a smooth mechanic. It needs to replace numeric bonuses.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 14, 2013 14:20:06 GMT -6
Wow I just went back through the packet to finish up my character for tonight's game. The XP table resembles nothing from any version of the game. This is nowhere near the "Rosetta Stone" of gaming. You're not going to be able to use any previous D&D material with this game without considerable conversion.
Edit: To be fair I'll say this, the same thing everyone said about 4th: It looks like a fun game, but it definitely isn't D&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 14, 2013 16:32:41 GMT -6
Interestingly, the description of the fighter class is three and a half pages long. The m-u is five and a half pages, and the cleric six full pages.
In M&M the same classes are defined in 9, 13, and 9 lines (plus the spells per day and turn undead charts).
It seems to indicate that WotC haven't stripped the game right back to its barest essentials (something that could have been very OD&D-like), saving all the extra fluff for the splat books.
|
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Nov 14, 2013 17:17:55 GMT -6
Wow I just went back through the packet to finish up my character for tonight's game. The XP table resembles nothing from any version of the game. This is nowhere near the "Rosetta Stone" of gaming. You're not going to be able to use any previous D&D material with this game without considerable conversion. Why do you feel that is this the case? XP is a player-sided mechanic for the most part, so if the players are all using D&DN then they're all on the same page (almost literally). If you're using old modules, you'd have to use the XP from the D&DN materials of course, but that's not much trouble. Were you anticipating being able to drop in a fighter directly from the 1st edition players handbook, XP tables and all? Just wondering why you feel this way, because I'm not sure why these conversions would be much more of a bother than between most other editions (the possible exception being 1st and 2nd AD&D). I'd probably just have the hit points figured out ahead of time and written in pencil in the old module, and a book open to the relevant part of the monster material. Much like I'd be doing for most games. I actually like the new XP tables from what I remember. Knocked a couple of them zeros offa there. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 14, 2013 20:26:17 GMT -6
Yeah, I agree with strangebrew on the XP issue. You can change XP or even replace it with a roll to advance system, and practically all modules and sourcebooks are still usable. Only thing that needs to be converted are (1) XP charts for non-core classes of past editions; and, (2) Any mechanics designed around XP manipulation. There aren't many of those, and they are rarely used by more than one version of the game; even the ones in AD&D 1e are pretty much isolated to just that edition.
I haven't seen any of the D&D Next materials, just what people have mentioned in blogs and on forums. I really hope that the skill system is binary -- you have it or you don't -- and is one of the things that uses advantage/disadvantage, as Jason suggests above. You really don't need a hardcoded skill list if you do it that way; just some example skills and some unique ones players might not think of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2013 23:00:25 GMT -6
I have not played. I have read a good bit about it. Sounds like "Bigger! Better! More! (but only if you want it that way)" edition. It could go very well. It could go very very wrong too. It is in open beta. WotC is trying to listen to what players want. They have to be very selective. Not all player ideas are good ones. Whatever the case, it hopefully will be designed well enough that players can play in the style they are most comfortable with. Word, brother! I hope you're right! Because, even though I play other games, if I still game, at all, D&D is what brought me there, and I don't want it to vanish. |
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 15, 2013 1:58:59 GMT -6
Wow I just went back through the packet to finish up my character for tonight's game. The XP table resembles nothing from any version of the game. This is nowhere near the "Rosetta Stone" of gaming. You're not going to be able to use any previous D&D material with this game without considerable conversion. Why do you feel that is this the case? XP is a player-sided mechanic for the most part, so if the players are all using D&DN then they're all on the same page (almost literally). If you're using old modules, you'd have to use the XP from the D&DN materials of course, but that's not much trouble. Were you anticipating being able to drop in a fighter directly from the 1st edition players handbook, XP tables and all? Just wondering why you feel this way, because I'm not sure why these conversions would be much more of a bother than between most other editions (the possible exception being 1st and 2nd AD&D). I'd probably just have the hit points figured out ahead of time and written in pencil in the old module, and a book open to the relevant part of the monster material. Much like I'd be doing for most games. I actually like the new XP tables from what I remember. Knocked a couple of them zeros offa there. The XP was just an indication of how far they strayed. In older editions you'd need around 2,000 xp to get to next level for most classes. They've dropped it down to 250. While you're right, it would be a simple conversion, its a clear example where they've just completely deviated from the usual D&D. If this is game is supposed to be the "Unifying D&D", then you'd think it would keep most of the "D&D things" we're used to. I actually just got done playing tonight, and a huge area that has changed is spells. "Cure Light Wounds" now does 2d8+2 at first level. "Burning Hands" did somewhere around 3d8+something damage. This right here is proof I could not(edit) pick up a spell book from another version and use it with minimal conversion or consideration. The same spells are completely different. D&D NEXT is not a bad game, but it is not the game we were promised. We were promised that you could sit down at one table and have everyone playing a different edition together. While this was obviously too much to hope for, you can't use material from any other edition without either heavy conversion, or simply using it as inspiration. As ridiculous as it sounds I use 3.5 material with my OD&D games all the time, with minimal conversion. Usually I simply ignore this or that. Spells actually can be used as is with most cases. Obviously 1E, 2E, and B/X material can be used with practically no conversion at all. With NEXT I can't see doing any of that. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Nov 15, 2013 7:43:43 GMT -6
You're focused way too much on numbers, IMHO. And let's be fair; the numbers between OD&D, B/X, AD&D, and AD&D 2E are as different as night and day. I've also been in the playtest since day one, and I think that while this definitely feels like a new edition, they have indeed gone back to a game that actually feels like D&D when I play it. I see any conversions as minimal at best--just use D&D Next versions of classes, spells, monsters. Easy and done. If I need to convert a spell, I'll wing it as I always have. But then, conversion between editions and games has never been an arcane puzzle to me; I do it instinctively and on the fly. Heck, I've even done it between d20 games and Unisystem games. On the fly. *shrug*
To me, in this game, a fighter feels like a fighter. A cleric like a cleric. Every class isn't boiled down to wizard-like resource management, or a board/card game estimation of a class name. The definition of "role" is now "character," again, rather than "tank, healer, etc."
I can see playing this game with an OD&D, AD&D, or 3.x feel based on the options you strip out of characters.
I dig it. And I HATED 4e with an unholy passion.
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Nov 15, 2013 9:42:55 GMT -6
What can I say? I truly have zero interest in another version of D&D. It could be (and considering how bad - imo - 4e was, probably has to be) a significant improvement over 4e, and still have nothing to offer me.
D&D - before it was called such - started out as something some dudes made up for themselves to have some fun. It was all about imagination and the freedom to create whatever. Now companies sell this stuff to us as if we need them to do it for us. It's not needed at all. I happily make up my own games and see doing so as half the fun.
Nothing against others who enjoy buying new game materials for whatever reason. My point is just that I don't feel a need for it. Every version of D&D has added layers of stuff that didn't add anything to my game, just added bulk and price.
Still, out of curiosity, I'm sure I'll peruse the books in a bookstore sometime down the road. Probability of buying the rules, regardless of what they do, is probably at about 0.1%.
No interest at all.
|
|
Koren n'Rhys
Level 6 Magician
Got your mirrorshades?
Posts: 355
|
Post by Koren n'Rhys on Nov 15, 2013 13:15:41 GMT -6
D&D NEXT is not a bad game, but it is not the game we were promised. We were promised that you could sit down at one table and have everyone playing a different edition together. I have to say - I keep seeing this on one board or another and I don't agree. That's not the way I read their early statements at all. I think it was pretty clear that we would be able to use NEXT to play the game in the style of any of the old editions, depending on what sub-systems the DM chose to use or not at his table. I don't think it was ever the intention that a group could sit down and one guy could play a OD&D magic-user, while another one had a 1E gnome illusionist/thief and a third had a 3E half-tiefling warlock/bard/cleric. There was and is NO WAY that was ever going to work. I agree with greyelf here. It IS a new edition and no denying that. There are bits pulled from every edition and new stuff too - some good some bad depending on your tastes. But all that aside, it is clearly a step back in the right direction and will be a game that is playable as an RPG, as opposed to the tactical board game with D&D terminology that was published as 4E. For the record, I too played a bit of 4E - a fun enough game for what it was, but not the type of things I want to play on a weekly basis, |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 15, 2013 13:49:08 GMT -6
D&D NEXT is not a bad game, but it is not the game we were promised. We were promised that you could sit down at one table and have everyone playing a different edition together. I have to say - I keep seeing this on one board or another and I don't agree. That's not the way I read their early statements at all. I think it was pretty clear that we would be able to use NEXT to play the game in the style of any of the old editions, depending on what sub-systems the DM chose to use or not at his table. I don't think it was ever the intention that a group could sit down and one guy could play a OD&D magic-user, while another one had a 1E gnome illusionist/thief and a third had a 3E half-tiefling warlock/bard/cleric. There was and is NO WAY that was ever going to work. It's based on this Legends & Lore article by Monte Cook, 16 Jan 2012: The way he phrased it, it's the player who chooses which modular add-on to use to make a character, while the DM uses a different selection of rules. This may have been a mistake in phrasing, or it may have been Monte's idea, which may be why he's no longer on the design team. It's not actually impossible. I've heard reports that Dave Arneson ran D&D at conventions with any characters from any system. Of course, what he would be doing is translating the character description into what he was using behind the screen, and I doubt WotC (or certain D&D fans) would be willing to go along with such a free-wheeling style. EDIT: Oh, wait, here's an even better quote from that article that makes it explicit: Monte was explicitly promising exactly what jakdethe thought he was promising. It was probably just marketing hype, though. |
|
