Ok, so at long last the 5e playtest materials are finally available. I've given all the materials a cursory read.
At a glance this looks like a min-maxer's paradise. Bonuses are too abundant for my taste.
Also, HPs are way out of whack for me. It would be very hard to die in this edition given the HP and the death rules.
I really hate that the monster stat blocks don't have Hit Dice. I don't want all my baddies having exactly the same hit points, that's just gamey.
The stat blocks are cumbersome, as they felt the need to include ability scores for things like oozes and centipedes. Really?
Backgrounds and themes look redundant to me.
There are also stat discrepancies between the character sheets and the equipment list (this might just be me, but I don't think so).
How WotC would expect you to play an Old School style with this game I have no idea. It would have to be so heavily houseruled that you might as well play something else.
It still has feats, healing surges by another name, etc. that simply do not interest me one bit.
I'd play this as a one-off but it is too far removed from TSR D&D to be useful to me.
"There are a few things we know that will change in short order. For instance, monsters still need some work, and the starting character hit points are a bit inflated to account for that." — Mike Mearls
ReplyDeleteYes, there are stat discrepancies for at least the great axe. Probably a bug.
Ability scores are required for monsters since they are saving throws now. Not sure how I feel about that yet.
Seems to me they should do what Castles and Crusades does which is give the monsters two Saving Throw options- Physical and Mental. Thats it. A monster may have a good ( called a Prime) Physical, Mental or Both Save. The base is 12 for a Prime saving throw and 18 for a secondary Saving throw. Then just add the creatures level/HD to it and thats it- easy. If the creature is saving agains anything what is mental ( mental spells, intimidation, persuasiveness, etc) then they make a save vs Mental. If its a physical effect ( physical spells, force based attacks/effects, etc) they make a Physical saving throw.
DeleteCharacters on the other hand make saves based on each of their stats- but for monsters, its just easier to give them two saves and its easy to figure out what a monster has to save against even if there isnt a rule for it- Its either Physical or Mental.
@Tom Or you could play Castles and Crusades.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI absolutely agree. And the hp/damage scale is just insane. Most monsters look like they can be brought down with 1-2 hits unless they're supposed to be important, in which case they have huge pools of 100s of hp.
ReplyDeleteI was going to ask you what an "important monster" was but that seemed lazy.
DeleteSo I did a google image search: http://zxlcreative.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8345206e269e201310f432e64970c-800wi
The character sheets suggest ignoring backgrounds and themes for a more old-school feel. I think that's a reasonable bit of modularity, but we'll have to see how it works in practice.
ReplyDeleteAgree totally about the monster hit dice. That could be an easy fix on their end, and based on the other randomness they have injected it might even be likely. The advantages/disadvantages thing is designed to avoid bonus inflation (two dice take highest/lowest).
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem that I see is the plethora of wizard and cleric at-will powers (including light, which fights against low-level resource management) and the dwarf's stonecunning ability which allows then to avoid mapping (seriously, read it if you haven't).
There seems to be another bizarre issue where wizards must allot higher level spell slots to receive better damage dice with lower level spells.
DeleteI'm not sure, but that suggests to me that one could memorize Magic Missile as a level 3 spell to get 2 missiles which seems insane.
I don't know if it would get rid of mapping but it would ensure you never got lost *sigh*
ReplyDeleteWhy are they always trying to find ways to rid the game of its grit? It reminds me of the 4e default that all dungeons are lit.
This is a pander to 4e game
This is a pander to 4e game But, but . . . they had 4e players already!
DeleteI shouldn't be laughing this much. ><
I think WotC must be doing the compromise thing right... OSR think it's too 4e, 4e folk think it's too OSR. No one happy? Successful compromise!
DeleteAnd you know, from my quick read through I'd say "this is a pander to pre-4e game"... but that's me.
This is nothing, NOTHING, like 4th edition. I play 4th edition, I've also played OD&D, and this game is a hybrid of 2E and 3E. It's the safest way WOTC could play it.
DeleteWhy are they always trying to find ways to rid the game of its grit?
ReplyDeleteBecause they don't have any appreciation for or understanding of D&D. They aren't trying to create a new edition of D&D, they're trying to create the 'next big thing' that they can slap the D&D logo onto for name recognition.
That's what happens when "design" a game for money instead of for love.
Delete*when people
Delete@Sean: What's that? D&D cereal is part of this nutritious breakfast? Sign me up!
Delete@Josh, even Gary designed for money. Sure the OSR let's us stand on the shoulder of giants, but don't get mad at someone for wanting to eat.
DeleteGygax may have designed for money, but he continued designing because of a love of the game, as did many others associated with its birth. Sorry, but you really just cannot equate the corporate giant of Hasbro or even the lesser behemoth of Wizards with the man who said every table should have its own rules.
DeleteI had hopes (although extremely small and faint) that this game may be an alright game for another option, but after seeing this playtest my group and I will pass and stick with LL-B/X. While I do like it better than 4e, it just is a mash-up of 3.x and 4e. Way too fiddly for my taste.
ReplyDeleteI am not a fan of the return to 3.x stat blocks or the dwarf stone cunning (which is insane). Looks like I pass on D&Dn/5e. Just more money for the OSR.
For me, it's all about life context. I have two young children and a profession. That means when it comes to gametime I am normally pretty bagged. I will never remember All the feats and fiddly abilities from game to game. I tried that with 3.5 and we just didn't play often enough to have a real command of the bs details.
ReplyDeletePrep needs to be clean and minimal, texts references need to be minimized, things I need to track also need to be minimized, and I have zero interest in character builds.
@Greg Agreed on the family aspect. Our switch to Labyrinth Lord has been really awesome. If anything, I feel we should have done this back in 2011 once I realize they wanted to keep playing. I'm slow.
DeleteBefore the playtest, when people started mentioning background and themes, I didn't really get it. I kept thinking, I don't care if my players come up with a background (we're brothers!) or a theme (we're pirates!), why does everyone have a problem with this?
Just don't make a background and be generic class X, who cares?
Oh, it's weird WotC thing.
I agree; rewarding system mastery is a big turn-off for me, largely because of the time issue.
DeleteIt's like 3.x ate C&C and 4e, then vomited this thing out.
ReplyDeleteJames, you hit it dead on.
Delete@grim Before or after it vomited?
Deleteafter.
DeleteWhy am I not surprised this is an abomination? Oh yeah, right, now I remember, it's WoTC.
ReplyDeleteI really didn't even mention the disaster ofnreleasing the playtest. Boy, they didn't even get that right. There are people still trying to download it.
ReplyDeleteWithout question they should have made 1) a modular game like they bloody promised, or 2) start supporting all the editions.
I strongly suspect most of the modularity is going to be left by the side of the road. That being said, the first to iterations of the Friends & Family play test lacked modularity as they were trying to get the "core" system right before making it more modular.
DeleteStill, the defaults built in make it difficult to see any type of modularity allowing Old School style play.
I think this playtest still potentially deserves our attention. The caves of chaos sample adventure is almost a primer to old school gaming (not too surprising, given that it is an edited Gygax text). Some of the points it highlights:
ReplyDelete- No single storyline, even language about no railroads
- Players don't need to move through encounters in any order
- Monsters and treasure can be enough motivation
- Dynamic dungeons between PC forays
- Potentially killer and unbalanced encounters
- Does not define every DC to reward creative play
Etc, etc. Sure, there is language about methods to save the PC's bacon, but even Moldvay had language to that effect.
I mean, compare this to the discourse of "progress and evolution" that accompanied the releases of 3E and 4E.
There are lots of remaining issues, some of which I outlined above (and Greg mentioned a few more). It is possible that these will be addressed though.
@Brendan
DeleteIt's a trick. Get an axe.
LOL @burnedfx!
DeleteMaybe we were looking at different playtest materials, because it looked very oldschool oriented to me. The whole thing looked ALOT more like B/X than 4th Ed. To me, the playtest indicates a huge victory for the oldschool style of play and a virtual admittance by WotC that 4th was the wrong direction to take things.
ReplyDeleteThis guy was pretty thorough on the material: http://rolltocarouse.blogspot.com/2012/05/review-d-next-playtest-material.html
DeleteIs your material different?
@Pierce, you are smoking The Dope lol
DeleteI'm with Pierce. I thought this was actually pretty great. The rules are 31 pages long. The class / race rules fit on the character sheets themselves. They've simplified the mechanics even more. (No more separate saving throw tables / abilities.) It looks like they've given up on 4E's attempt to catalog everything a character can do. This is much better than I thought it was going to be.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes get worn out reading all the OSR blogs because there is so much haterade.
This seems to be literally the case of Wizards realizing the only gamers who don't get all their material from bittorrent are Grognards. I don't see why people are getting so upset about this; the material is practically a love letter to the OSR players, right down to the included adventure being Keep on the Borderlands. Yeah, there's going to be changes from 1e/2e, but the way people are shouting you'd think there was a rule where you had to piss on Gygax's grave every time you made an attack roll.
Delete@Ramanan & Eric
DeleteI see no hate even in the most vocal of the OSR. There is confusion, interpreting mixed messages, and just discussing odd thoughts coming from the mouths of WotC.
When WotC's Witnesses knocked on my door at Encounters for the first time, we were polite and let them speak. When they held "their bible" up in a red box, it looked like the real thing. When they knocked on the door of the OSR, I think we all wished they'd go away.
Just ignore them? They keep knocking on the door!
There is no real hatred coming from my heart. It's a gaming company. It's amusing, if anything.
*knock* *knock*
I thought we told them to leave?
*knock* *knock*
Ugh, let me handle this.
*knock* *knock**knock* *knock**knock* *knock**knock* *knock**knock* *knock**knock* *knock**knock* *knock*
It's passion that I see coming from all of the OSR blogs, not hatred. Passion for a game they love so much!
WotC using Keep on the Borderlands is a wolf in sheep's clothing, not a love letter.
Pissing on Gygax's grave? Meh, maybe every time you roll to dodge.
I think we will see modularity as we see more material. I don't see how this game is a min/maxer's dream and in fact, it's easy to just use the 3d6 or 3d6 Straight for Attributes. What I've seen of Themes and Background present an easier way to introduce options to players.
ReplyDeleteBut, I've been a playtester since August and have been running 2 5E games since then. I like what I see and hope to see more.
Look at the bonuses on the sheets. Do you think those are going to go down? Just wait until they bring out the character build rules and options
ReplyDeleteThe odds of that are about the same as taking an economics course where they talk to you about shrinking the economy.
@Burnedfx, it's a wolf in sheep's clothing or a trojan horse, one or the other.
If those are the bonuses at level 1, think about them at level 5 or 10 or even 20. I know they want to flatten the math (so they say), but I don't see how they can flatten it without pissing off the 3.x/4e crowd of optimizers.
DeleteThe keep is a trick to lure the OSR players. I was shocked to see an 88hp ogre, 132hp troll. That is not old school, that is 4e style hit points.
I wish WotC the best, but in all honesty, they are just going to fracture the fan base even more.
I have said it once and I will say it again, it is just a mash up of 3.x/4e. Don't forget that the playtest rules may look like B/X, since they are short, but how long until you need multiple books, pages for a character, online resources?
Did you not see what I posted above about Mearls on hit points? They plan on bringing them down. They might change their mind, but I doubt it. Even 4E players commonly complain about the huge pools of hit points. I think optimizers like choices (which is potentially an issue with those of us, myself included, that dislike rewarding system mastery).
DeleteRegarding bonus inflation, I think we will have to wait and see, as there is no way to tell from the current playtest materials. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that base attack bonus (or similar numbers) go up at all over the first three levels for any of the classes. The fighter does get a damage bonus at level three, I think. But everything we have seen and they have said points to a game with much flatter math. To assume otherwise at this point is just paranoia.
I saw waht you posted and read the interview before as well. I understand the need to test these things out, but I still think they could have gone with half the hp totals and been fine. When I ran 4e, I did halve the hp of monsters, which did help, but still felt like too much to me.
DeleteI believe that they will try to keep the bonuses lower than in 3.x/4e and hopefully get rid of bonus stacking which would go a long way in my books.
I still have the faintest glimmer of hope, but not much for D&Dn. The fact that no one in my group (die hard 3.x/4e lovers) want to touch it and would rather stick with B/X-LL means it is not for us. Which honestly surprised me, since my one friend says 4e is his favourite edition, and he has been playing since AD&D. Perhaps we are all tired of the WotC treadmill that is D&D now.
Maybe the game plays better than it reads.
Man, the trojan horse sounds so much better. =[
Delete@Brendan To assume otherwise at this point is just paranoia.
I don't think it's paranoia, as much as it's looking at WotC's track record, it's history of what they have produced, and their versions of D&D.
Fool me once and all.
My playtest report is up: http://redboxvancouver.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/i-played-5e-dd-tonight/
ReplyDeletetl;dr Cautiously enjoying it so far, despite missing some key old school elements.