D&DNext: Playtest Review

[Lago PARANOIA]

5E D&D won't last forever; that's a given. So whenever it reaches the end of its product cycle, one can just point to that and say "See? I was right, give or take a year."

It's like the joke about economists predicting 9 of the last 5 recessions.

Want something less vague? These are my predictions and I'm MOSTLY sticking to them. The only one I'm changing is the one in bold.

So. I predicted three years ago that 4E D&D would go down in flames Spring 2012 and I was totally right.

Feeling drunk off of my success, I am making a whole new set of predictions:

[*] Mike Mearls avoids the initial round of yearly layoffs due to his smooth-talkingness. Nonetheless the product goes down in flames by the summer of 2014. Mike Mearls and his number two Bruce Cordell becomes a pariah in the industry having helmed two successful failures. Pathfailure probably hires him sometime in the future because once you've hired SF fucking R you've proofed/prooved/proved yourself a complicated welfare organization for washed-up douchebags and hacks. Expect to see them to hire Matt Ward, Strazyncski, and Brannon Braga soon.

[*] Rather than starting on Sixth Edition, Hasbro shelves the IP entirely for awhile. This allows Pathfailure to become the semi-official face of D&D for the intervening period.

[*] 5E D&D doesn't even try to get its virtual support off of the ground. Not that they won't make a token effort, but it'll be clearly vaporware by the end of the year except for maybe a barely functional version of the 5E character builder that will look stupid and chintzy because of 5E's greater emphasis on magical tea party.

[*] MtG continues posting years of success. Probably also gets a new X360 or PS3/Vita videro jame. There is some serious talk, and not just here, of the D&D and MtG divisions permanently merging with D&D becoming the permanent bitch of MtG.

[*] 5E D&D continues to take heavy artistic influences from World of Warcraft, because Diablo 3 isn't going to be out as long and most of the same clowns that worked on 4E D&D are still around.

[*] Their new fair-use product will be slightly less restrictive than GSL but still moreso than the SRD. No real third party settings come out.

[*] Forgotten Realms, Ninter Vale, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance die a quiet death and never ever get resurrected. So there's a bright side, at least, along with Mike Mearls being permanently known among the non-fanboys as a self-aggrandizing fuckup.

[*] 5E D&D permanently fractures the fanbase. 2E grognards get the blame for the 5E D&D fiasco since appealing to these douchnozzles seems to be what's fucking the game up.

[*] Mike Mearls tries to throw a hail Mary to save his job, taking 5E in a weird and desperate direction. Probably by turning D&D into some weird board game / CCG hybrid like DragonStrike or Culdcept.

Now, I won't, or rather can't, say exactly when 5E D&D dies out for good. I give August 2013, give or take a month, as the latest release 5E D&D will come out. I said that 5E D&D goes down in flames Summer 2013, which is a bit too pessimistic (and too bullish on 5E D&D coming out this year), so I'm changing my claim to 'less than two years after it comes out'. Like 4E D&D though, it'll hit the point of no return about a year less than that. But it's totally possible for it to come out a few months earlier than that, depending on how much Hasbro micromanages and/or gets intolerant of the D&D brand falling behind Pathfinder for several quarters.

Regardless, though, seeing how quickly 4E D&D crashed and burned I give the edition a little less than two years after its release date.

[Username17]

Against huge bunches you just have to kite them. Move back and ready attacks, missiles until they can close, freeze to lockup the corridor and slow their advance. Use a corner to hide the Thief for extra fun. If I was to carry caltrops, burning oil, and mobile cover like a table, it'd be a joke XP farm.

What the fuck are you talking about? This isn't 3e or 4e. There's no battlefield control at all. If you want to move through an occupied space, you just do. You can't block the corridor. 5' of Caltrops just makes them take 5 extra feet of movement. You don't move at half speed for the whole turn, you move half speed for that five foot square.

Movement in 5e is so generous that you might as well not play with a mat. If you freeze one enemy in place, the other enemies can just move through the square. They don't even have to slow down. There are no threatened areas, no opportunity attacks. The closest thing to area control in the game is to dump out a bag of ball bearings: that covers a 10' square with DC 11 or fall down.

Basically, sounds like you were making unwarranted assumptions based on how D&D is really obviously supposed to work rather than going by what 5e actually says. I mean, look at this:

As an aside, some quick playtesting showed stealth easy enough to use.

Huh?

Stealth is contradictory. It's not "easy to use", it's impossible to use, because whether you can stealth or not is based on facing. And since that doesn't exist in the game, it's based on the player asking the DM to determine whether they automatically fail because the enemy is arbitrarily looking at them, automatically succeed because the enemy is not looking at them, or have to make a Dex vs. Wis rolloff because the enemy is quantumly looking at them.

Walk ahead hidden at 16+, most things will die via the surprise sneak attack, as you've only seen the front one thus far you can walk back and hide again.

What the shitfuck? The Rogue has a -1 on observation checks. He's actually more likely to be spotted by the Minotaur than the Minotaur is to be spotted by him.

Secondly, according to the rules, if you attack you "reveal your position". According to the rules for "staying quiet", if you "reveal your position", you are "no longer hidden". Not that you are no longer hidden from the orc you just attacked, you're no longer hidden full stop, and every other creature can attack you. Even if you run around the corner, you can't be hidden again until next turn, so if the monsters run after you (and they can hustle this turn and you can't), you're going to be being looked at and then hiding auto-fails.

I just don't see how the tactics you described are even a little bit possible with the rules as described.

-Username17

[ishy]

If you want to move through an occupied space, you just do. You can't block the corridor.

You can't move through the space of a hostile creature, so you could block a '5 ft doorway, or a 10 ft corridor with 2 people I guess.

And since that doesn't exist in the game, it's based on the player asking the DM to determine whether they automatically fail because the enemy is arbitrarily looking at them, automatically succeed because the enemy is not looking at them, or have to make a Dex vs. Wis rolloff because the enemy is quantumly looking at them.

I'd assume you'd try to mtp it by saying you move as your enemies don't look in your direction.

Even if you run around the corner, you can't be hidden again until next turn, so if the monsters run after you (and they can hustle this turn and you can't), you're going to be being looked at and then hiding auto-fails.

-Username17

Well even if they do hustle after you, you just hustle away and you'd be stuck in an infinite loop? Till you find something to hide?

[virgil]

I ran the playtest thing last night for about seven new people. We all had fun. Two wizards (one who kept their character permanently drunk), two fighters, and one of the rest.

We interpreted the rogue as being able to get behind a party member to block LoS enough for her to spend an action to spend an action to regain stealth, then jump out to throw another dagger for sneak attack.

When they woke up the ogre sleeping under the bear skin, same rogue started talking, saying she was wanting to buy his bear skin for two silver, a day's worth of rations, a dagger, and a magical rock that emits light (wizard had cast light on it earlier); I decided it was roughly a DC 15 and that the player was amusing enough to have advantage, so she rolled the social skill (think just Charisma), and succeeded. With that, they backed away.

They killed the kobolds and goblins they found quickly enough. I ruled that the very rough outline of characters in front of each other gave any targets in front cover.

When they fought the gray oozes and the ogre (separately, not at once), they pelted them with ray of frost (no save, just hit and unable to move) while everyone else hurled everything they got until it died.

Their initial impressions included spells being obtuse because of writing, wizards feeling like they were kind of boring/untactical (pointed out the 'tactics' available to the fighter), and wanted the more concise language back. They otherwise felt that it was D&D and the rules were a welcome wave of simplicity without being bogged down in minutiae; commenting that the more rules-heavy systems encourage long arguments over the rules, while this one leaves it up to the DM to decide.

I was fascinated by the lack of EL guidelines, and was told that if I could see they were truly outmatched, tell them and let them run away or get captured for an escape moment.

This is going to be the kind of reaction you're likely to get from people who actually play the playtest. The opinion that it's an editor away from being ready, and potential revamp of balance with the ray of frost.

[Username17]

This is going to be the kind of reaction you're likely to get from people who actually play the playtest. The opinion that it's an editor away from being ready, and potential revamp of balance with the ray of frost.

A lot of people are going to think that, yeah. Problem is: it's vaporware. If you cleaned up the wording it would be obvious even to those kinds of people how nothing there there is. The only reason it seems like there's a game system is because there's a lot of word salad with game terms in it. If you made the wording coherent all you'd do is show that there actually isn't a game under the hood.

Many of the abilities don't seem to do much of anything. And if you made them clear instead of unclear, the degree of nothing they do would be a lot more obvious. Mike Mearls is putting out clunky wording on purpose because it hides his lack of progress.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

virgil, how the fuck is that description better or even distinct from a 3E playtest? Or a 4E playtest? Or pretty much any gaming system for that matter? I mean, shit, I don't particularly care for 4th Edition D&D, especially low-level and core-only, but you could at least tell what was there and what was different. I think a lot of the innovations and edition-specific tropes were dumb as hell but I could at least reckon what people liked about it.

It seems to me that the only reason why people enjoyed it because it was new and they wanted something good. You know, like Star Wars Episode I.

They otherwise felt that it was D&D and the rules were a welcome wave of simplicity without being bogged down in minutiae; commenting that the more rules-heavy systems encourage long arguments over the rules, while this one leaves it up to the DM to decide.

You know, my family had a cocker spaniel once. We lived in a pretty big yard done up with a hurricane fence and she was constantly trying to bolt out of the gate. One time my old man took down the hurricane fence mesh, leaving the posts, to replace it... and the cocker spaniel just stayed in the yard. But when someone opened the useless gate she still tried to slip out. One time my mom tried to take the dog for a walk and led her through two of the posts -- and she freaked out after my mom did that.

If you're willing to abdicate any kind of fucking thought or participation to the DM, then why do rules-heavy systems bug you? Just fucking leave it to the DM! Are gamers really this neurotic?

This is going to be the kind of reaction you're likely to get from people who actually play the playtest. The opinion that it's an editor away from being ready, and potential revamp of balance with the ray of frost.

At this point, I'm pretty much praying that this is the attitude of the WotC staff. I hope they honestly think that and spend the next few months choking their chickens, implementing whatever insane mechanics Mearls keeps thinking of rather than realizing that they have a turkey on their hands.

[Mask_De_H]

Lago, it's been shown that time and again, what you expect and what other people expect are so far removed from each other to be on different planets. That being said, the only thing the average player cares about is feel. That cocksucker Mearls is smarter than all of us.

[ishy]

Well I think I can agree that ray of frost is really good if you have party members that work with it too.

In fact I'd say a party of only wizards (perhaps a rogue to find traps?) is the best party you can currently make.

Ray of frost till one succeeds at single target enemies and then the rest use magic missile or whatever to kill it without ever being in any danger.
If it has ranged attacks: ray of frost -> hide behind the pillar, pillar -> magic missile -> pillar.
This so it can never attack you anyway.

Probably sleep or Ray of frost to deal with larger groups of enemies with kiting and trying to seperate them.

[Chamomile]

In the end, "feel" is literally all that there even is to a game. No one is actually entertained just by watching numbers shift around in a vacuum. The reason we make mechanics is to help structure and enforce a certain feel to a game of make believe.

[ModelCitizen]

As an aside, some quick playtesting showed stealth easy enough to use. Walk ahead hidden at 16+, most things will die via the surprise sneak attack, as you've only seen the front one thus far you can walk back and hide again. As the rest come forward to hunt you the fighters smash them with readied crossbows, and Thief can "unhide" from behind those fighters to get another kill.

Hey, what house rules did you end up using for stealth? Are you treating Hidden like a buff or like a thing you have relative to each creature?

It seems like if that were cleaned up, and if you got Advantage against targets who don't know you're there even when when you're not Hidden, and they were more clear on when your enemies can make a Perception check, the stealth rules could be decent. They'd eventually need something not-handwavy for determining when an enemy's back is turned but at least what's here would be good. I mean, the standard for RPG stealth mechanics is "make a check against each of five creatures for every action plus whenever the DM feels like it, then act all surprised when stealth never works."

[Username17]

If it has ranged attacks: ray of frost -> hide behind the pillar, pillar -> magic missile -> pillar.
This so it can never attack you anyway.

This doesn't even work. The ready action action still exists. The monster can just attack you when you come from behind the pillar and before you go back in.

perhaps a rogue to find traps?

Clerics are literally better at finding traps. Disarming traps is all MTP anyway, so all classes are just as good as each other.

-Username17

[virgil]

OSH is frankly a better system for doing what 5E tries to do, but it will be ignored by frankly everyone I try to show unless I'm their only DM.

Biggest annoyance with 5E: the very presence of the name D&D is going make people automatically accept it and forgive immense amounts for its flaws. We saw this with Pathfinder. I had no choice but to play Paizo's crap because that's all the local group was willing to give the time of day, latching onto the "3E with the problems fixed" mantra; their stint as the makers of Dragon magazine giving an air of legitimacy.

People on the 'net continuously put others down, saying that if you don't like a system you can just not play it and play something else. "Gaming police aren't storming your home forcing you to use their errata" they say. Why do they ignore the fact that RPGs are not just a book, a movie, or even a video game you just use by yourself? It's a social activity that requires group consensus to even begin. Indirectly, what they do actually does force me to play they want, making it a choice of not gaming at all or swallowing what they declare.

[K]

Old School Hack is pretty incoherent. Maye that could be cleaned up by a good editor, but I'm pretty sure that it's just fundamentally incoherent.

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

The biggest problem with the 5e playtest is that it is playable.

The skill system is just MTP, but it offers more options to players who used to have few or no options. The combat system is super-simplified, but that makes it easy to use and understand and there hasn't been enough time to get bored. The Advantage/Disadvantage system is fiddly and poorly explained, but the clusterfuck problems appear infrequently enough right now to be ignored. The monsters are easy to run and understand and are new, and that makes it hard to want a coherent monster creation system that gives depth to monsters.

I mean, much of the critiques of 5e so far deal with the fact that we simply expect a better system. We expect a tactically deep combat system, a clearly defined skill system, a magic item creation system(balanced, of course), a balanced set of character abilities, and math that "works well" instead of "works passably." We also haven't been treated to the clusterfuck that will be the module system, so the biggest obstacle is not there.

Without those expectations and issues, the playtest is a success.

[OgreBattle]

The biggest problem with the 5e playtest is that it is playable.

Isn't that also the issue with 3e and 4e

[crizh]

I've always liked the Stirge as a good example of totally broken shit.

The 3rd edition version was just stupid dangerous, not quite Allip bad but close, the 5e version could probably use some work.

Once it's attached you have two rounds to get the fucker off or you're dead. You have to beat it in an opposed Str vs Dex test. It's got a Dex of 17 so good luck if you're a spellslinger...

Wouldn't want to run into more than half a dozen of them at any level.

The Blood Drain appears to stack so three or more could kill you in a single round. Actually four certainly will once they are attached.

[K]

Yeh, there are 13 in a single encounter in the sample adventure.

Basically, it comes down to "have an AoE that stops them before they attack or the entire party dies."

[virgil]

Old School Hack is pretty incoherent. Maye that could be cleaned up by a good editor, but I'm pretty sure that it's just fundamentally incoherent.

Could you elaborate?

[hogarth]

Old School Hack is pretty incoherent. Maye that could be cleaned up by a good editor, but I'm pretty sure that it's just fundamentally incoherent.

Could you elaborate?

I have to admit that seems like an odd criticism. I don't think there's enough content to Old School Hack for it to be incoherent!

[K]

Old School Hack is pretty incoherent. Maybe that could be cleaned up by a good editor, but I'm pretty sure that it's just fundamentally incoherent.

Could you elaborate?

1. The layout is really confusing and poorly organized. For example, the sample classes are also sample character sheets and you have to pick some of the abilities off them. This is pretty confusing for new players who are not going to remember what they actually picked.

The flowcharts and text boxes also don't help at all since they are the only place to get information and not a helpful supplement.

Another example is that I can't find any section on immediate actions even though a lot of abilities use them, and that's the kind of problem throughout the beta that might be fixable. Too many things are not in the section where they should be, aren't explained at all, or hidden in a text box somewhere.

2. The abilities are not simple at all. For example, the Goblin's Slippery ability gives you "The first attack on you during a round you've spent moving automatically misses you; but you cannot use a move on the following round.(Immediate action, once per Arena)

That's a bullshit number of things to track for a single ability that does so little (check for First in round, once in arena, maybe once for immediate action, have you moved this round, can't move next round).

I shudder to imagine what a level 10 character has to keep track of.

3. At lot of the abilities are MTP and that's somehow even worse. For example the Elf's Nimble Attack gets some kind of Cool Effect the DM decides. WTF is up with that?

4. The skill system is magic tea party, but it goes off attributes that seem really similar and has no sample DC-like target numbers. Honestly, it's not a system at all.

5. The Awesome point system doesn't make any sense at all AND just seems a way to cause dissent at the table.

[K]

The biggest problem with the 5e playtest is that it is playable.

Isn't that also the issue with 3e and 4e

Not really. Those are big and complicated systems that are playable.

The 5e playtest is small and playable simply because it doesn't try to be a complete game, and that is going to lead WotC down the wrong path in future design decisions.

Making a game that is supposed to last 100 adventures is far different from one designed to last one adventure and leads to far different design decisions.

[Username17]

The 5e playtest is small and playable simply because it doesn't try to be a complete game, and that is going to lead WotC down the wrong path in future design decisions.

Making a game that is supposed to last 100 adventures is far different from one designed to last one adventure and leads to far different design decisions.

Yes. The natural element of a rules-light game is the one-shot with all new players. Like an "open playtest" if you will. For such a game you wouldn't need to have any mechanics at all, you could just roll d20s and have the DM narrate events based on how big those numbers felt. For a one-shot, that would probably be fine. For a longer or repeated play commitment, it obviously would not be.

By releasing a pile of vaporware stamped repeatedly with "and then the DM fudges something!" on every page, they've made something which is a complete dead end as far as making D&D campaigns, but unfortunately something that will probably get enough reasonably pleasant one-shot games that Mearls will be able to claim success for his methodology.

-Username17

[tussock]

As an aside, some quick playtesting showed stealth easy enough to use. Walk ahead hidden at 16+, most things will die via the surprise sneak attack, as you've only seen the front one thus far you can walk back and hide again. As the rest come forward to hunt you the fighters smash them with readied crossbows, and Thief can "unhide" from behind those fighters to get another kill.

Hey, what house rules did you end up using for stealth? Are you treating Hidden like a buff or like a thing you have relative to each creature?

I had to resort to using my imagination in regards the game world, in that there isn't really any rules I can follow. So the Orcs were basically sitting around in a half-circle, bragging to each other and playing with their dicks or something, when the halfling nails one from the limit of sight and then runs back out of sight and stands behind the dorfs. ie, our brave hobbit rolled well and they didn't.

OK, he's got to roll to see them first if they're laying in ambush (and he would see one of them, because orcs are all rolling and don't get the 10+ numbered d20, but that's not at all what the module suggests, so they weren't trying to.

I'm pretty sure he just wanders right up to them and braids their hair if he wants, because he's won the stealth contest. Well, does anything stealthy like slowly walk on past against a wall, because MTP and DM-says-no-to-your-dickery.

Anyhoo, by the time the Orcs actions come up, there's nothing to see but their dead comrade. How can they be aware of the hobbit? He's not there any more, they just know where the attack came from because that's the side the hole in the deadorc's head is, and I guess they caught a glimpse of where he went or something. Meh.

It seems like if that were cleaned up, and if you got Advantage against targets who don't know you're there even when when you're not Hidden, and they were more clear on when your enemies can make a Perception check, the stealth rules could be decent. They'd eventually need something not-handwavy for determining when an enemy's back is turned but at least what's here would be good. I mean, the standard for RPG stealth mechanics is "make a check against each of five creatures for every action plus whenever the DM feels like it, then act all surprised when stealth never works."

I'm really just using they have their back turned or are otherwise distracted if they fail their first perception check, and it stays that way until there's some clear reason it may not, so that it's not stupid but I'm still using what rules I can decipher. My only assumption is the monsters can't really be aware of you when you're around the corner, because otherwise the players are all going to be "I'm aware of all the things I can't see too!" and shit. Better to let the hobbit hide, assuming I'm supposed to let it work despite the rules as much as anything.

Advantage of rules-light RPGs. "Yes you can, now what do you do."

[Username17]

My only assumption is the monsters can't really be aware of you when you're around the corner, because otherwise the players are all going to be "I'm aware of all the things I can't see too!" and shit. Better to let the hobbit hide, assuming I'm supposed to let it work despite the rules as much as anything.

Wow. That is a huge assumption. You changed it from "Your enemies are automatically aware of you if you attack and you need to take an action to hide again in a point where they can't be 'looking at you'" to "your stealth automatically succeeds without a roll if your move takes you behind a solid object after your attack each round".

That's the complete opposite of what the rules actually say. But yeah, I guess if the Rogue got to automatically succeed on stealth without rolling dice just by firing from cover, that he'd be a lot better than the one described in the playtest packet.

-Username17

[Saxony]

The 5e playtest is small and playable simply because it doesn't try to be a complete game, and that is going to lead WotC down the wrong path in future design decisions.

Making a game that is supposed to last 100 adventures is far different from one designed to last one adventure and leads to far different design decisions.

Yes. The natural element of a rules-light game is the one-shot with all new players. Like an "open playtest" if you will. For such a game you wouldn't need to have any mechanics at all, you could just roll d20s and have the DM narrate events based on how big those numbers felt. For a one-shot, that would probably be fine. For a longer or repeated play commitment, it obviously would not be.

By releasing a pile of vaporware stamped repeatedly with "and then the DM fudges something!" on every page, they've made something which is a complete dead end as far as making D&D campaigns, but unfortunately something that will probably get enough reasonably pleasant one-shot games that Mearls will be able to claim success for his methodology.

-Username17

Frank, I'm starting to like rules light systems more and more. Could you tell me why rules light games are bad for long campaigns? Is it because the rules aren't consistent or what? Don't write too much or anything unless you want to.

Thanks,
Saxony.

[...You Lost Me]

Could you tell me why rules light games are bad for long campaigns?

Imagine you have a character whose only job is "swing and deal damage". This is all he does, every round of combat, for all combats.

Let's say people get bothered after hearing the same thing 3 times, and there are 10 ways to phrase "you stab it" and 5 ways to phrase "you miss" it, with 2 ways to phrase a critical success and fumble and keep it interesting. That's 3(10 + 10 + 2 + 2) = 72 ways to state results before you start saying things the players get bored of.

In a given combat, a player will roll 4 times to hit something, and maybe once to defend. That's 5 rolls per combat, per player, so 20 rolls per combat with a party of 4. The players will hear the results of 20 rolls made by the good guys. In an average session, you could go through 4-5 combats, giving 80-100 rolls. So by the end of it, the DM will be stretching things a bit to keep the players interested.

By the next session, your stabbity character with only one attack will go through the ordeal again, except this time you've heard all of those descriptions more than enough. And you'll get less interested. One-shot games become very boring the more you play them, because you begin to see the lack of depth that the game provides.