D&DNext: Playtest Review

[hogarth]

In other words - in D&D Next, no character actually gets any better. The same wooden door that stopped your level 1 party will stop your level 20 party...

That's not D&D. That goes against every damn edition of D&D.

Say what? In 1E and 2E, your ability to break down doors did not increase with level at all. In 3E, your ability to break down doors (with a Str check) increased very slowly with levels if you put your stat points in Str, although hacking through a door increased more quickly than that. In 4E, your ability to break down doors had a weird complicated connection to your level (e.g. your ability increased by +1 every 2 levels, but the DC increased along a different schedule).

So what are you talking about?

My two cents on "attack bonuses don't increase": In practice, they will increase because people will be trading in +1 swords for +2 swords and adventure writers will be expecting that. And I don't think that having attack bonuses increase slowly is a terrible idea. At the very least, it makes 100 times more sense than "all ability checks increase by lvl/2 and all target DCs increase by lvl/2" which is the same thing except needlessly complicated.

[Fuchs]

In other words - in D&D Next, no character actually gets any better. The same wooden door that stopped your level 1 party will stop your level 20 party...

That's not D&D. That goes against every damn edition of D&D.

Say what? In 1E and 2E, your ability to break down doors did not increase with level at all. In 3E, your ability to break down doors (with a Str check) increased very slowly with levels if you put your stat points in Str, although hacking through a door increased more quickly than that. In 4E, your ability to break down doors had a weird complicated connection to your level (e.g. your ability increased by +1 every 2 levels, but the DC increased along a different schedule).

So what are you talking about?

I am talking about this:

Edit: And how will that be possible anyway, if damage goes up? You can pierce the hide of a dragon, but not wreck a wooden door? Unless you somehow magically cannot damage a door, a wooden door will not be a challenge for a high level party.

It's a door, we hack it to pieces. Even stealth does not matter - bursting it open is as loud.

Those idiots actually think a damn wooden door should be challenge for a level 20 party lacking a strong character. Which means they probably didn't even think about parties destroying doors instead of trying to force them open.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Something I think you guys also missed: People will get accuracy boosts, they just won't do it at the same rate. So, I have no idea whether this means they will try to "balance" certain classes by making the fighter more accurate than the wizard, or just so that if you use an attack outside your shtick you still suck.

Yeah, I have no idea why the hell a group of level 20s should be challenged by a door. I also find it interesting that a large number of city guard are expected to take on a dragon and win - it reminds me of an angry anti-4e post where someone pointed out the ancient dragon couldn't one-shot a level 1 monster. (Apparently he can if he blows all his abilities).

And ishy ninja'd my point about the lurking MTP. They're still emphasizing that "educate the DM to set DCs" rather than the 3e approach of "here are DCs for things. Enforce them. You may modify them if you believe it warranted, but these are the base."

You'd really think they'd have learned by now about padded sumo. Although I guess this fits with Mearls' ambition to make enchantment and SoDs suck.


Lastly, in my incoherent ranting, I want to see the dumbasses implement fatigue rules for long fights. Not because it would be good for the game, but because it would be funny.

[deaddmwalking]

From the quote about the door remaining DC 17, I'm getting a totally different vibe.

Basically, they're saying that the DC for breaking down a door is a static DC. If you get better at breaking down doors, you'll have an easier time breaking down doors at higher level.

This is a repudiation of the 4th edition skill challenge where a challenge became MORE difficult the higher your level.

If you have a +4 to Strength checks to break down a door and the DC is 17, you're going to succeed on a 13 or better.

If, at 15th level, you have a +15 to Strength checks to break down a door and the DC is 17, you're going to succeed on a 2 or better.

If you're 15th level and you have a +4 Strength check to break down a door and the DC is 17, you're still succeeding just as often as at 1st level.

The point is that the DC doesn't arbitrarily scale up to 'remain challenging' at all levels of play. It's quite possible that high level adventurers will be breaking down doors with great ease - the DC doesn't increase just because the PCs get better at breaking down doors.

Now, I'm not sure about the implementation. It seems from what has been revealed that there's virtually no chance of having a +15 to opening doors at high levels. And if an iron bound door is DC 17, and an adamntium door is DC 31, it's quite possible that adamntium doors are actually IMPOSSIBLE to break down... Unless maybe a really good battering ram gives you a +20 on the roll...

[Seerow]

The most baffling thing about this is how overwhelmingly positive the feedback is for it so far.

Like, I could understand if people were okay with the combat side of thing losing scaling. I don't agree with it, but at least there you still have HP/Damage scaling to give some sense of progression.

But on the skills end of things, with no scaling at all, you have literally the same challenges at level 20 as at level 1, and people apparently love this! They are seriously over there wanking to the fact that a fighter has a good chance of being stopped by a plain door.

I want to believe that 4e's skill system just broke their minds, so now they're willing to accept anything. After all, having the wooden door be a set DC and the fighter not scale at all must be better than having the wooden door get harder to break the higher level the Fighter is, right?

[Lago PARANOIA]

He calls his website "D&D With Pornstars" and advertises that he runs a game for drunk sex workers. That's his shtick. That is what he advertises himself as doing. His whole claim to fame is that he can get drunken sex workers to show up for a regular D&D game despite the fact that they aren't D&D's usual demographic or particularly well versed in math or its cultural idioms.

To be absolutely fair, running a game for a modestly toasted anyone is an uphill fight. I'm not talking barfing-drunk or buzzed, but, you know, the level where peoples' speech are slightly slurred and they giggle a lot.

I can barely run such a game when my players are engineers and scientists, so, pulling off such a thing when the other players don't have a mathy job is worthy of some respect. And if you have to lean on MTP to do it, so be it.

The most baffling thing about this is how overwhelmingly positive the feedback is for it so far.

This actually I understand. D&D's double (or TRIPLE) digit addition and subtraction was and is fucking nuts even if you're sober. That and the aforementioned drunken gamer thing has been why I've been leaning to dicepools lately. If I wasn't so jaded if someone came to me and said 'we're getting rid of the ridiculous number scaling in D&D' my first reaction to it would be positive.

Personally, I expect the enthusiasm towards lack of scaling to be like the new MTPed rules. Fanboys rush to the scene and crow about what a great change it is, the ramifications sink in, and then there's a negative backlash. I'm still downright stunned that Mike Mearls' MTP article got any significant level of negative feedback at all, let alone the level it is.

[Username17]

From the quote about the door remaining DC 17, I'm getting a totally different vibe.

Basically, they're saying that the DC for breaking down a door is a static DC. If you get better at breaking down doors, you'll have an easier time breaking down doors at higher level.

This is a repudiation of the 4th edition skill challenge where a challenge became MORE difficult the higher your level.

Actually, he's saying two things:

• First, he is bluntly rejecting the 4e paradigm where a 15th level challenge is a 15th level difficulty and doors get harder to open because you're higher level.
• Second, he is bluntly rejecting the 3e paradigm, where 15th level characters are assumed to be able to blast through low level bullshit to the point where you don't even get XPs for that shit.

The monsters are worth static XP. Locked doors are still "a challenge". They expect you to give not just one, but two shits about low level monsters and obstacles at all levels. Frankly, I do not know why they bother having levels at all. They could just go skill-based and do that kind of thing way better.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

The monsters are worth static XP. Locked doors are still "a challenge". They expect you to give not just one, but two shits about low level monsters and obstacles at all levels. Frankly, I do not know why they bother having levels at all. They could just go skill-based and do that kind of thing way better.

-Username17

So other than player expectations, why don't they? If the default campaign setting was sufficiently good, the math worked out correctly, and there were more things for mundane characters to do I would pay actual money for a version of D&D: Shadowrun.

[Seerow]

The most baffling thing about this is how overwhelmingly positive the feedback is for it so far.

This actually I understand. D&D's double (or TRIPLE) digit addition and subtraction was and is fucking nuts even if you're sober. That and the aforementioned drunken gamer thing has been why I've been leaning to dicepools lately. If I wasn't so jaded if someone came to me and said 'we're getting rid of the ridiculous number scaling in D&D' my first reaction to it would be positive.

Personally, I expect the enthusiasm towards lack of scaling to be like the new MTPed rules. Fanboys rush to the scene and crow about what a great change it is, the ramifications sink in, and then there's a negative backlash. I'm still downright stunned that Mike Mearls' MTP article got any significant level of negative feedback at all, let alone the level it is.

The thing is, the MTP stuff was fairly mixed. It was at least as much negative as positive, if not morso. Even from the beginning. But this 'bounded accuracy' thing has like 2-3 people complaining, and everyone else going on about how great and innovative it is.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The thing is, the MTP stuff was fairly mixed. It was at least as much negative as positive, if not morso. Even from the beginning. But this 'bounded accuracy' thing has like 2-3 people complaining, and everyone else going on about how great and innovative it is.

1.) Wait a couple of days. The MTP backlash took a few days to get up and running on the Wizards and GiantITP threads.

2.) You have to account for the fanboy survivor/shill factor, too.

That said, 4E D&D people never seemed to be directly offended by the game pulling the DC rug from under them with that stupid-ass skill challenge/universal-DC system and they're the ones leading the charge against MTP'd combat. So who knows.

[fectin]

I'm a bit confused.

D&D Next is apparently low level forever, and XP/level-ups are more scorekeeping than actual advancement.

Why is this bad?

I mean, it's not a game that I would want to play, but I also rarely want to play Settlers of Catan (which is a good game). Doors being consistently the same DC is great (if an unexpected flash of insight for that particular source). That players can't break a door down "at level 20" is not a flaw in the game, because "level 20" is completely meaningless when you're designing a new system.

[Seerow]

I'm a bit confused.

D&D Next is apparently low level forever, and XP/level-ups are more scorekeeping than actual advancement.

Why is this bad?

I mean, it's not a game that I would want to play, but I also rarely want to play Settlers of Catan (which is a good game). Doors being consistently the same DC is great (if an unexpected flash of insight for that particular source). That players can't break a door down "at level 20" is not a flaw in the game, because "level 20" is completely meaningless when you're designing a new system.

Because they aren't making it totally meaningless. For example Vancian casting is in, so you know a lot of the problem solving spells will find their way back into the game. Combat Damage/HP scaling is in, so at higher levels you will be fighting higher level enemies. You're still fighting Balors, the Tarrasque, and Dragons, it's just at the same time you are incapabe of doing anything out of combat any better than a level 1 character could.

It basically boils down to another way to make magic-wanking an institution, and screw characters who can't use magic to solve their problems.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Two reasons; one franchise-related and the other implementation-related.

Franchise-related reason: people like high-level D&D shit. Not that they don't like low-level stuff but people like having the stuff in the game. 4E D&D not meaningfully putting it in the game hurt the product. High-level D&D stuff is really hard to implement so there's the temptation of just forgoing it and concentrating on the low-level stuff. But people want it in there. Exalted sucks as a game but if the game designers said that from now on that the game was going to revolve around superpowered mortals and Dragonborn interest in the game would collapse like a deflated blimp -- even though that's seriously the best part of in the game.

Two: If XP/level-ups were supposed to be more scorekeeping than actual advancement then they fucked up massively. I could understand a system where hit points and damage were kept more-or-less the same but the attack and defense scaled -- but the reverse? No fucking way in hell they get that right. Moreover, unless they really tamp down on the power scaling the spells are going to tear open the game anyway. The 2nd level spells in the game suck, but they're still significantly better than the 1st level stuff. If the spells go up to 7th level, that's a ton of power scaling to account for unless they're doing things 4E D&D style.

I could see myself purchasing and playing (though not going gaga over) a version of D&D that spanned for levels 1-5 by 3E D&D reckoning and really expanded on this facet of play. If that's their intent, though, then they're doing everything wrong.

[Seerow]

Okay judging from more recent forum posts, people supporting this seem to be under the impression there WILL be scaling in skills, just not scaling that comes automatically with level. They're pointing to some old blog post where it was mentioned you might have tiers of skill training that increase +3/+5/+8, so they expect a level 20 character to have something like +12-14 on their roll, as opposed to the +6 at level 1.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Okay judging from more recent forum posts, people supporting this seem to be under the impression there WILL be scaling in skills, just not scaling that comes automatically with level. They're pointing to some old blog post where it was mentioned you might have tiers of skill training that increase +3/+5/+8,

I mean, really now.

If what they're objecting to is scaling automatically and always happening, well, I understand peoples' dismay that their clumsy level 19 wizard is a better stealth expert than a 1st level rogue but the other way around has and does work way worse. See: 3rd Edition skills or 4th Edition magic item bonuses.

Pretty much the best you can do is lock people out of auto-scaling unless they put forward a token effort that would allow it. That would stop the clumsy 19th level wizard with no character investment from sneaking better than a 1st-level rogue, but you'd still have the 'problem' of a 19th level wizard with a minor in stealth is still better than sneaking than a 1st level rogue. But as you can see from my quotation marks, I am unconvinced that this is a problem at all.

[infected slut princess]

FUCK THESE GUYS. WotC is really starting to piss me off.

This feeds in with the earlier point about DMs and players understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of things, since it not only makes it easier to understand play expectations, but it also ties those expectations very firmly to what those things are in the world. Now, we want to avoid situations where DMs feel bound by the numbers. ("Hey," says the player, "you said it was an iron-bound wooden door and I rolled a 17, what do you mean I didn't break it down?")

Seriously, FUCK THIS contradictory crap.

You want to have people "understand play expectations" and have those expectations tied to "stuff in the world".... but if the DM doesn't want you to break down the door when you role a 17 even when that should have happened, that's that. FUCK YOU PLAYERS. Suck DM cock harder next time.

We hope to do that by making sure we focus more on teaching DMs how to determine DCs and other numbers, and letting them adjust descriptions and difficulties based on their needs.

What the fuck??? Don't "teach me" how to "make up" DCs -- just give us some goddamn charts with DCs for stuff!

In other words, DO SOME ACTUAL FUCKING WORK you shitsucking WotC dicklickers!!!

I am getting so pissed off about this 5e nightmare. I seriously didn't even ever think it would be THIS bad.

Sure I knew it would be bad, because of Mearls. But THIS BAD???? It is guided by worse philosophy I can imagine, so instead of crashing and burning, the new edition just explodes before it gets off the ground.

They should just make D&D open source and be done with it. FUCK YOU WotC!!!!


EDIT: No wonder Mike Mearls hates rules so much. Check his his LEAST FAVORITE THING IN THE WORLD:

That probably also explains why my #1 pet peeve is a player who quotes rules to me. Think the rulebook has all the answers? Then let's see that rulebook run a campaign!

SOURCE: http://kotgl.blogspot.ca/2010/04/i-am-n ... eller.html

[DrPraetor]

[*] First, he is bluntly rejecting the 4e paradigm where a 15th level challenge is a 15th level difficulty and doors get harder to open because you're higher level.

That's good!

[*] Second, he is bluntly rejecting the 3e paradigm, where 15th level characters are assumed to be able to blast through low level bullshit to the point where you don't even get XPs for that shit.

That's bad.

[*] Third, you get your choice of toppings!

That's good!

[*] Fourth, the toppings do not scale with level and there are only three to choose from.

That's bad.

[*] Fifth, the toppings are preserved so that they remain tasty at all levels.

That's good!

[*] Sixth, the toppings contain Sodium Benzoate.

???

That's bad

[CapnTthePirateG]

FUCK THESE GUYS. WotC is really starting to piss me off.

This feeds in with the earlier point about DMs and players understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of things, since it not only makes it easier to understand play expectations, but it also ties those expectations very firmly to what those things are in the world. Now, we want to avoid situations where DMs feel bound by the numbers. ("Hey," says the player, "you said it was an iron-bound wooden door and I rolled a 17, what do you mean I didn't break it down?")

Seriously, FUCK THIS contradictory crap.

You want to have people "understand play expectations" and have those expectations tied to "stuff in the world".... but if the DM doesn't want you to break down the door when you role a 17 even when that should have happened, that's that. FUCK YOU PLAYERS. Suck DM cock harder next time.

We hope to do that by making sure we focus more on teaching DMs how to determine DCs and other numbers, and letting them adjust descriptions and difficulties based on their needs.

What the fuck??? Don't "teach me" how to "make up" DCs -- just give us some goddamn charts with DCs for stuff!

In other words, DO SOME ACTUAL FUCKING WORK you shitsucking WotC dicklickers!!!

I am getting so pissed off about this 5e nightmare. I seriously didn't even ever think it would be THIS bad.

Sure I knew it would be bad, because of Mearls. But THIS BAD???? It is guided by worse philosophy I can imagine, so instead of crashing and burning, the new edition just explodes before it gets off the ground.

They should just make D&D open source and be done with it. FUCK YOU WotC!!!!


EDIT: No wonder Mike Mearls hates rules so much. Check his his LEAST FAVORITE THING IN THE WORLD:

That probably also explains why my #1 pet peeve is a player who quotes rules to me. Think the rulebook has all the answers? Then let's see that rulebook run a campaign!

SOURCE: http://kotgl.blogspot.ca/2010/04/i-am-n ... eller.html

So...he gets paid to write rules...and he hates rules... the FUCK WotC?

How was Mearls hired again? I know people threw around that Iron Heroes system but I never heard of him before 4e. So he refuses to write rules...the fuck is he getting paid to do? Sit on his ass and play D&D?

On the plus side, it's going to be hilarious when this shit bombs - the fanbase is already divided - and Mearls gets fired.

P.S. I would trust a rulebook to run a campaign better than Mearls. Also, the best part? 4e has rules for running a game without a DM.

[koz]

MaRo has publically stated that he hates anything in MtG which isn't 'all aggro all the time'. Guess what he's the head of?

[Blicero]

Why is everyone freaking the fuck out about damage and hp scaling, but attack bonuses staying constant?

Sure, it could lead to a shitty system (knowing WotC, it probably will). But these starting assumptions also lead to CAN and TNE, which seem to be pretty cool ways of handling combat.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Sure, it could lead to a shitty system

No, it WILL lead to a shitty system. Think about it. You want a system that simultaneously:

[*] Does not scale attack and defense much.
[*] A 1st-level orc can take down an average 1st-level adventurer in three good hits, hitting about 40-65% of the time when it makes an attack.
[*] By the fourthway point of the game, however, the 1st-level adventure can take on 12 of the same orcs whilst barely suffering a scratch.

Fucking THINK for a moment how much number scaling that would entail. Your hit points would skyrocket like crazy. Even before we examine whether the system produces the intended outputs, you need to scrap your system because you're already doing ridiculous bullshit like subtracting 8 from 214 6 times in one friggin' round. And the game is only a quarter of the way over. It's like someone proposing a system where you have to take the square root or percentile multiplication of a number. We don't even have to look at the rest of the proposal, we can declare it shit without wasting our time.

The only way their system will work even remotely is if they don't actually intend for players or monsters to do all that much power scaling. Which is totally possible, I can see a team of 12 orc archers being a credible threat at level 10 to a 5E fighter if they're not blinged out in magic gear.

[Seerow]

Sure, it could lead to a shitty system

No, it WILL lead to a shitty system. Think about it. You want a system that simultaneously:

[*] Does not scale attack and defense much.
[*] A 1st-level orc can take down an average 1st-level adventurer in three good hits, hitting about 40-65% of the time when it makes an attack.
[*] By the fourthway point of the game, however, the 1st-level adventure can take on 12 of the same orcs whilst barely suffering a scratch.

Fucking THINK for a moment how much number scaling that would entail. Your hit points would skyrocket like crazy. Even before we examine whether the system produces the intended outputs, you need to scrap your system because you're already doing ridiculous bullshit like subtracting 8 from 214 6 times in one friggin' round. And the game is only a quarter of the way over.

On the bright side, we can be reasonably certain HP/damage won't actually scale that much (if it was going to, numbers would be going up a lot more even in the first 3 levels), so they'll just fail to meet their design goals of high level characters taking down hordes of orcs. My guess is HP scaling proceeds exactly as we've been shown, and a level 20 Fighter has like 140 HP tops. So a level 20 fighter might be able to take down like 8-10 Orcs on his own before dying. A level 10 would be restricted to more like 6.

[MisterDee]

The only way their system will work even remotely is if they don't actually intend for players or monsters to do all that much power scaling. Which is totally possible, I can see a team of 12 orc archers being a credible threat at level 10 to a 5E fighter if they're not blinged out in magic gear.

I think it was one of their stated goals, though. Wasn't there one of those blog posts where they said that they wanted monsters to remain relevant longer?

[ModelCitizen]

The only way their system will work even remotely is if they don't actually intend for players or monsters to do all that much power scaling. Which is totally possible, I can see a team of 12 orc archers being a credible threat at level 10 to a 5E fighter if they're not blinged out in magic gear.

That would be impressive, a new way to shit on martial classes! If you're a level 8 fighter and you still have a 60% chance to hit a lv1 goblin archer then you look like a shitdick 40% of the time. Meanwhile your blaster wizard laser cleric buddy gets progressively bigger and more powerful Save Half nukes: the goblin archer still makes its Dex save sometimes, but then it dies anyway.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So the new paradigm is going to be logarithmic warriors, linear wizards? Oh... joy.