D&DNext: Playtest Review

[ishy]

Possible but not very logical.
Because if you finish for level 20, and then get a brilliant idea for level 10, you might have to rework level 20.
I'd advise you to make a design first, indicating in rough guidelines what you want all levels to be like.

[RobbyPants]

Rereading the skill system. It is still entirely "argue plausibility with your DM," and explicitly encourages the DM to make up DCs after the roll.

Explicitly? Do you have a quote of what they said? I'm curious how they justified that.

[deaddmwalking]

All of the stuff that's limited by maximum hit points seems like a different way of saying "less than 3HD, give or take".

One big difference is that a creature with lots of hit points (like a Minotaur, I guess?) will become vulnerable to these attacks after you wear it down a bit.

The actual numbers might be pretty stupid. If you can put a minotaur to sleep when it gets to below 3d8 (say 13 hit points), you're probably just as well off hitting it a few more times.

But in general, it provides an option to synergize attacks between a Fighter and a Wizard a little better - an opponent might not be vulnerable to a particular spell until the Fighter 'leans on him' a little.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Here it is, RobbyPants.

Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to
set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs
presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls
a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.

So, there's that.

[Neurosis]

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Whatever]

For an ordinary Leadership Check, the player should roll a d20 and add their Leadership score, and likewise for Skill Checks. As usual, 20s are a critical success and 1s are an automatic failure. A roll above 14, before adding in the Leadership score, is a normal success, while a roll below 8 is a normal failure. Intermediate rolls should be adjudicated based on the circumstances, but should not go well for players with low Leadership scores.

Here I thought my 15+ on the die succeeds, 7- fails, 8-14 = argue with the DM was a ridiculous parody of skill challenge "rules" (since it's basically what people do given no rules at all), but it turns out that's one of their actual suggestions now (except slightly less player friendly)? Unreal.

[hogarth]

Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to
set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs
presented here.

Ugh. It's bad enough that awful GMs do that -- you don't need to convince good GMs to do the same.

[virgil]

All of the stuff that's limited by maximum hit points seems like a different way of saying "less than 3HD, give or take".

One big difference is that a creature with lots of hit points (like a Minotaur, I guess?) will become vulnerable to these attacks after you wear it down a bit.

That's only for sleep, which is just hit points. Note that spells such as Suggestion or Web explicitly state "maximum hit points". This means wounds do not make a creature any more vulnerable to such attacks.

[RobbyPants]

Here it is, RobbyPants.

Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to
set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs
presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls
a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.

So, there's that.

Jesus Christ! Really!? Why even have mods and DCs if we only care about the raw dice?

I mean, I get where they're going here. On a level appropriate task, you'd figure you have X% chance to succeed. This will go up or down a bit depending on your skill level (are you specialized in this?) and circumstances. Also, it will change if it's not level appropriate, and is instead harder or easier. You know: all the things that make the modifiers and the DC.

It seems like it would have been easier to just give a table with 20 rows and 3 columns listing a single DC for an easy, moderate, and hard task per every level, and slap it on the inside of the DM screen. Then instead of Ad Post Hoc MTP Bullshit, they'd actually be using the fucking rules. God damn.

(Side note: so, we're supposed to fail 50% of the time on a level-appropriate task, too? Wonderful)


BTW, thanks for pointing me to that so quickly.

[virgil]

For an ordinary Leadership Check, the player should roll a d20 and add their Leadership score, and likewise for Skill Checks. As usual, 20s are a critical success and 1s are an automatic failure. A roll above 14, before adding in the Leadership score, is a normal success, while a roll below 8 is a normal failure. Intermediate rolls should be adjudicated based on the circumstances, but should not go well for players with low Leadership scores.

Here I thought my 15+ on the die succeeds, 7- fails, 8-14 = argue with the DM was a ridiculous parody of skill challenge "rules" (since it's basically what people do given no rules at all), but it turns out that's one of their actual suggestions now (except slightly less player friendly)? Unreal.

That would be an interesting idea. Have a fixed scale like the above, but skill rank and such actually determines what happens on a success, intermediate, or a failure. Highly skilled people suffer minimal to no consequence on a failure, bare success on an intermediate, and do awesome on a normal success. Low to barely skilled suffer a notable setback on a failure, minimal to no consequence on a failure, and a normal success at 15+.

That's probably too well-thought out though

[Duke Flauros]

The first rule of being a good DM is to remember that the rules are a tool that you and the players use to have a good time. The rules aren’t in charge. You, the DM, are the one in charge of the game. Guide the play experience and the use of the rules so that as many of your players have a good time as possible. There will be setbacks, such as a character being slain by an unlucky die roll, but look for ways to turn setbacks into interesting complications in the game’s story.

Using These DCs:
Nobody expects you to keep these numbers in your head, but we really don’t want you to have to look at a table every time you have to decide on a DC. So here are some tips.
If you have decided that a check is called for, then clearly it’s not a trivial task—you can eliminate DC 7.
Then ask yourself: “Is it easy, moderate, or hard?” If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 13, and 16, your game will run just fine.
If you find yourself thinking, “Well, it’s really hard,” then you can go up to the higher DCs. If it’s a bit harder than hard, add +3, to 19 (very hard). If it’s still harder than that, add another +3, to 22 (formidable). If you think the task is next to impossible, then 25 is your DC.
Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds. Your players will never know.

As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws.

Checks: When a player makes a check, invite him or her to describe the character’s action. If the player makes clever use of the situation in the description, consider either granting an automatic success or advantage on the check.

As a DM, remember that the dice are like the rules. They’re a tool to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player’s action is automatically successful, even if the DC would normally be somewhere above 20. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform even the easiest task into an impossibility.
The dice are neutral arbiters. They come into play when success and failure are far from clear. Think of them as impartial judges, ready to dispense a yes or no answer based on a character’s bonus and the DC you have selected. The dice don’t run the game. You do.

You determine how many magic items characters can find in your adventures. The game does not assume that characters need them to succeed. Magic items, when found at all, simply make PCs better.
Thus, you can add or withhold magic items in your adventures as you see fit. Being somewhat stingy with magic item placement, especially at lower levels, means that players will appreciate such items all the more when they find some.

[nockermensch]

Here it is, RobbyPants.

Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to
set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs
presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls
a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.

So, there's that.

We should had patented that.

[Whatever]

We should had patented that.

Oh, there it is! I knew I'd gotten the idea from somewhere.

[MGuy]

The first rule of being a good DM is to remember that the rules are a tool that you and the players use to have a good time. The rules aren’t in charge. You, the DM, are the one in charge of the game. Guide the play experience and the use of the rules so that as many of your players have a good time as possible. There will be setbacks, such as a character being slain by an unlucky die roll, but look for ways to turn setbacks into interesting complications in the game’s story.

Using These DCs:
Nobody expects you to keep these numbers in your head, but we really don’t want you to have to look at a table every time you have to decide on a DC. So here are some tips.
If you have decided that a check is called for, then clearly it’s not a trivial task—you can eliminate DC 7.
Then ask yourself: “Is it easy, moderate, or hard?” If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 13, and 16, your game will run just fine.
If you find yourself thinking, “Well, it’s really hard,” then you can go up to the higher DCs. If it’s a bit harder than hard, add +3, to 19 (very hard). If it’s still harder than that, add another +3, to 22 (formidable). If you think the task is next to impossible, then 25 is your DC.
Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds. Your players will never know.

As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws.

Checks: When a player makes a check, invite him or her to describe the character’s action. If the player makes clever use of the situation in the description, consider either granting an automatic success or advantage on the check.

As a DM, remember that the dice are like the rules. They’re a tool to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player’s action is automatically successful, even if the DC would normally be somewhere above 20. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform even the easiest task into an impossibility.
The dice are neutral arbiters. They come into play when success and failure are far from clear. Think of them as impartial judges, ready to dispense a yes or no answer based on a character’s bonus and the DC you have selected. The dice don’t run the game. You do.

You determine how many magic items characters can find in your adventures. The game does not assume that characters need them to succeed. Magic items, when found at all, simply make PCs better.
Thus, you can add or withhold magic items in your adventures as you see fit. Being somewhat stingy with magic item placement, especially at lower levels, means that players will appreciate such items all the more when they find some.

Thank you for this. A good laugh is a good start to the day.

[OgreBattle]

seems like the only guarantee to an effect is a spell.

[ishy]

I'm blaming shadzar for all this.
Didn't he claim he got Mike Mearls to make some changes? This really sounds like typical shadzar bullshit.

[deaddmwalking]

RPGPundit is a 'design consultant'. I don't know if it follows his personal views, but it's very similar to what I see from the most established posters at theRPGsite.com.

[MGuy]

I'm blaming shadzar for all this.
Didn't he claim he got Mike Mearls to make some changes? This really sounds like typical shadzar bullshit.

This actually sounds almost exactly like the shit that people were spouting in a certain thread over at thRPGsite. So it may well have been shadzar or some other "play the game and not the rules" preachers that he could be listenin' to.

[infected slut princess]

It seems plausible that shadzar is shitting himself in excitement over this latest edition of D&D. MAKE SHIT UP AND WIN

[Ravengm]

I'm blaming shadzar for all this.
Didn't he claim he got Mike Mearls to make some changes? This really sounds like typical shadzar bullshit.

Actually i ahve talked to Mearls a few tiems and changed some of HIS ideas about what D&D is/was, and inspired a few L&L articles.

I can't find the original post, because searching for it gives me someone's sig and I'm too lazy to sift through the results.

[nockermensch]

Can we start calling D&D Next "Shadzar's Edition" now?

[Dean]

Do not speak his name lest you summon him

[CapnTthePirateG]

Do not call the beast!

[Zaranthan]

Crashing through the night
Comes a fearful cry
Shadzar! Shadzar! Shadzar! Shadzar!
Grognard of the night
Nonsense taking flight!
Shadzar! Shadzar! Shadzar! Shadzar!
No where to run
No where to hide
Panic spreading far and wide
Who can turn the tide?


Nobody. Abandon all hope.

[Seerow]

Crashing through the night
Comes a fearful cry
Shadzar! Shadzar! Shadzar! Shadzar!
Grognard of the night
Nonsense taking flight!
Shadzar! Shadzar! Shadzar! Shadzar!
No where to run
No where to hide
Panic spreading far and wide
Who can turn the tide?


Nobody. Abandon all hope.

Oh my god I'm dying