D&D 5th/Next?

[Wizardawn]

Im not passing judgement either, I just want to see what others have heard or think.

Well...I think you might find more people at Dragonsfoot (I couldn't find the thread there but I thought there was one) and I heard that OSRGaming guys seem to discuss it quite a bit. Maybe try the OSRGaming forums because you will get opinions by people who played/play older D&D variants and are messing with D&D Next so you will get those opinions...instead of the ones on the WotC boards that are 4e player opinions (meaning you will have a better chance at getting an opinion from the eyes of an old school gamer at OSRGaming).

[redwullf]

My recommendation is to sign up for the play test, download the rules, and have a thorough look before passing harsh judgement.

No one is passing "harsh judgement" here...yet. I simply don't care because I don't need to keep shelling out cash for another, and another, and another fantasy role-playing game. I feel the same way about the 20+ versions of Monopoly they released over the years. I already have Monopoly...I don't need more no matter how they dress it up. Blood Axe asked what others think. That is what I think. I already own Dungeons & Dragons (just like I own Monopoly). I have met people over the years with huge shelves of 50+ RPGs sitting on them. When you get down to it, they maybe played a few of them and only for a very short time. The others were opened, maybe read all the way through, and now sit in that gaming trophy case they are ever so proud of. Some people buy to read them, some people buy them because they are searching for that perfect game they haven't found yet, others buy them to play them.

That was aimed more at "A hill dwarf dragon-blooded necromancer bounty hunter is NOT the game I want to play," and was at least in part tongue in cheek. I do stand by the notion of checking the rules out for oneself rather than taking anyone else's opinion at face value (whether that opinion is good or bad). In a nutshell, I just wanted to say get the free rules and study them, then make an informed decision.

I'm that guy with the shelves full of books. I find the various versions interesting - it's as much a simple matter of collecting as it is getting my hands on sources for ideas, concepts in gaming, etc. I just enjoy the tactile experience of cracking open a brand new RPG book, I guess.

[Blood axe]

My doubts come from this post:

I am embarrassed by my character to be honest. I played a 1st level hill dwarf bounty hunter dragon blood sorcerer necromancer. See why I feel somewhat embarrassed?

My character was a bounty hunter who was lured by the call of necromantic power and felt the blood of dragons burn with fire within my blood. All of that info was only in my mind as it never ever came up in the game. My bounty hunting meant nothing, my dragon blood was simply fuel for combat, and my necromantic ways simply granted disadvantage to enemies.

The character had twelve hit points, an AC of 16, could attack with a maul for 2d6+4 points of damage, had 3 spell points and could cast burning hands for 1 spell point and do 4d4 points of damage with a Dex save for half damage. The character was also a necromancer so if I drained a spirit or two I could also cast cause fear for 1 spell point and hit every foe within 20 feet with a Wisdom save at disadvantage or run away. I could also cast magic missile whenever I wanted for 1d4+1 points of damage and auto hit. Dragon Strength for 1 spell point allowed me to add 2d6 points of damage to my maul attack once within 1 minute after casting. I also had shocking grasp at will but only used it to shock my brother's wizard after the burning hands debacle.

If I ran out of spell points, my maul started hitting for 2d6+6 points of damage.

Again, no challenge. My character was grossly overpowered in comparison to any previous edition of D&D. I could cast spells, I could wear any armor, I could wield any weapons, and I had a d10 hit die as a hill dwarf. Oh, and I was a bounty hunter necromancer with dragon blood too.

Sheesh.

http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave81.phtml


-----------------------------------------------------------

I have checked several posts on the blog you suggested, so I am still hopeful. The game is still being playtested, so changes are happening. I'll download the rules myself & check them out.

[redwullf]

I don't know what to say. Sounds like much of that may have been "flavor" more than mechanic. Although any "flavor" that gives all opponents disadvantage when attacking the PC is mighty indeed (and I don't recall seeing any such "power" in the play test rules). I have a feeling this observation is based on some "flavor" for context and perhaps some liberties on the part of the DM, or perhaps some houserules - neither of which are in the spirit of play testing the actual rules. It's too soon to "mod" the game, in my opinion.

[Blood axe]

If you check the link and read the rest, you will see where my doubts came from.

[Agrippa]

Am right to I assume by dragonblooded they mean as in acutually the descendants of dragons? That doesn't seem likely for dwarves period. Now this kind of dragon-blooded I can understand for dwarves. Especially as Earth Aspect types. But since this isn't Exalted it isn't so. Though I've been working on that on and off. Mostly off anyway.

[redwullf]

If you check the link and read the rest, you will see where my doubts came from.

Fair enough. I noted the post was from late August of last year - there have been several new versions of the game test since then.

Right now Wizards is asking for high level play-testing, so we're about to spin up our PCs to lvl 14. Should be interesting.

[Blood axe]

If you check the link and read the rest, you will see where my doubts came from.

Fair enough. I noted the post was from late August of last year - there have been several new versions of the game test since then.

Right now Wizards is asking for high level play-testing, so we're about to spin up our PCs to lvl 14. Should be interesting.

So I need to do more research and get up to date.

[elf23]

I had a look at some of the early playtest packages for D&D Next (didn't play it, just read through the rules). One thing that stood out to me was that they seem set on keeping the unified, roll-high d20 mechanic from D&D 3/4 at the core. Depending on your feeling this may be a good thing or a bad thing (I can't stand that mechanic personally.)

I'm in the same camp as Wizardawn though -- I'm interested to see what WotC are up to, but for my gaming I already have more than enough versions of D&D that I'm perfectly happy with (AD&D, AD&D 2e, B/X, LL).

At any rate, the initial play-test featured the very core classes: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief. Since then, they've added the Monk, and now just recently, the Barbarian.

I seem to remember they also had a package with warlocks and sorcerers, or some such, as well.

[Dyson Logos]

Personally, I love that each edition is different.

If it weren't different, then it would ispo facto be the same, and there's no point in buying the same game again and again. Instead I want a variety of games that fulfill different desires. *Our* (being my gaming group's) old school games are high-mortality affairs with a significant body count and generally exploration-and-survival themes. But we also play 3.5 with it's dragon-blooded necromantic bounty hunters and everything when we want that kind of game.

If 5th edition was just a new version of 1st edition, I definitely would see no reason to pick it up.