In other words, the completely new XP progression may or may not be “better” — of course, no-one will ever agree on that — so why does ANYTHING have to be completely new? I thought this was supposed to be a compromise edition, or a unified edition, the edition to end all edition wars and bring us all back under WotC’s banner. Instead, we’re just going to have yet another combatant in the edition wars.
Monte was explicitly promising exactly what jakdethe thought he was promising. It was probably just marketing hype, though.
Maybe 5E could have been that way if he hadn't left the development process. I can imagine ways of doing what he promised:
Have a rules skeleton of classes without skills or feats, and making them optional add ons to the game that you can plug or take. Characters without skills or feats can gain other automatic advantajes.
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2013 15:53:21 GMT -6 by Zulgyan
The current play test rules actually support the game without feats, moreover one player at the table can use feats and another doesn't have to while still being balanced. They seem to be delivering on their promise.
Thanks talysman, summed up exactly what I've been saying.
I'm not so hung up on the numbers for the sake of numbers. I do for a fact use 1E, 2E, 3E, and B/X materials in my OD&D games. Having to use the 5E versions of "classes, spells, and monsters" cuts out the most material from every other edition. Modules are never going to be a problem. The majority of material ever released for D&D is classes/character options, spells, and monsters. Making them flat out incompatible to where I have to use the 5E options, severely limits you. They're funneling you into buying that editions material.
The fact that so many spells have so drastically changed means conversion is no longer simple. It really is arcane and complex now. I know in 1E, 2E, and 3E "Cure Light Wounds" healed 1d8 or 1d8+1 hit points. In OD&D 1d6+1 I believe. Now in NEXT it heals 2d8+1. It completely shifts the power level of certain material. There aren't clear guidelines, or any apparent rhyme or reason to these changes or decisions.
Like I keep saying, it is a fun game. It is a game where a cleric "feels" like a cleric, and a fighter "feels" like a fighter. But it's not a unifying D&D, and I certainly can't use any material from the last 40 something years of gaming.
EDIT: To clarify I'm not hung up on the XP chart, or spells. I'm using them as key examples I have experience with. The 3E players in my group have noted that Feats, and feat progressions have drastically changed. My DM wanted to allow us to use 3E feats in our game, but he simply can't, because he would either have to heavily convert and combine the old ones, or make them up from scratch. There aren't any clear guidelines, or any discernible reasoning behind any of the design decisions in this game.
Last Edit: Nov 16, 2013 2:37:20 GMT -6 by jakdethe
Post by rabindranath72 on Nov 18, 2013 8:35:57 GMT -6
I suppose one could say that we already had the "unifying" D&D; the original 3e (3.0) had most of the same spell names, spell levels, class characteristics only formulated in a different way. Character packages in the PHB helped start a game in a few minutes, with skills lists and feats already chosen, so the player didn't have to do much. The list of feats was minimal, and each feat addressed a well-defined aspect of the game. I have had players new to D&D start with 3.0 in a few minutes, it really wasn't all that complex. To me, NEXT feels like a mixed bag at the moment; if I wanted a "novel" D&D, I'd choose 3.0 any time.
If you look at the latest play test, there are different options for the fighter that lead to different levels of crunch in the game. So you could play something simple or complex, depending on your mood. And more importantly different players at the table could play games with different levels of crunch on their character sheet. I think the plan is to do something similar for all the classes. The skill system looks easy enough to drop completely from the game if you weren't interested in that as well.
The XP progression makes levels 1-3 about learning the game, as the characters are super-simple before level 3.
I'll add, I was actually playing a D&D Next game online (G+) with people also using characters from other D&D editions. It worked fine. Players with B/X characters had to figure out their to-hit bonus and AC. One guy was playing a Necromancer from OSR supplement, and he would say what his special powers were and the DM used the power of common sense to figure out how things would work.
*update*: Removed some snark.
Last Edit: Nov 18, 2013 14:13:16 GMT -6 by funkaoshi
I think for me it is all more disheartening then irritating. As everyone has always known, you don't have to stop playing your old games. As I've stated I think NEXT is fun, and I'm currently playing in a 5E Campaign at my FLGS. What's really sad about it not being backwards compatible, not even remotely, is that I can't use it with my OD&D game. Sure it's captured the "spirit" of D&D very well, and it's tons of fun. But There is no way I'm going to be able to use 5E spells, monsters, classes, etc... in any of the games I DM.
EDIT: I meant to say (and forgot) that what's the most disheartening part, is that there's going to be a new version of D&D in stores, that I'm not going to want to buy. I wanted to be able to buy the NEXT books, and pillage them for material, but it's just too different from older editions crunch wise. This is the same thing that made me sad about 4E while it was still out. With Pathfinder, I love checking out the new books, and getting them to pillage material from.
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2013 16:51:39 GMT -6 by jakdethe
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