D&DNext: Playtest Review

[shadzar]

Even the new Neverwinter MMORPG steals the names of 4E powers, but doesn't use the mechanics at all.

I'd think that's more because the 4E rules would be horrible for a MMORG than anything else.

and the funny part is that 4e was made for MMO style play. it wouldnt work for MMOs, and doesnt work for D&D.... lets just call it RPG Snow from now on.

apart from some novelty sales to a relative handful of 30/40 somethings, a D&D toy line wouldn't sell to the intended audience and wouldn't be worth launching.

Legolas, Tanis.. how different are they really Voss? if LotR toys can sell being the same genre, then D&D can too.

What are you talking about?

Walmart has stupid plastic swords and shit, or did when LotR movies were out; for Aragorn, Gimli, Frodo.... you tell me a plastic sword, axe, or dagger doesnt sell? you tell me that they are special only for LotR?

put a damn red or blue LED in one with a small battery so it can light up and you have a D&D frost brand or flame tongue. costs about $1 to make, sells for $5.


ANYTHING that was made for LotR so far as a toy goes, can double as something for D&D. you just have to make it and slap the fucking logo on it to get younger kids looking at or talking about D&D.

happy meal toys again are too fucking easy. put a silly looking plastic dwarf fighter toy, elf wizard, halfling thief, human cleric in a set and there ya go! "boys" get D&D figures, "girls" get MLP, and then brother and sister can play together where the D&D PCs fight the evil MLPs. HASBRO win all around.

making stupid little toys to sell a brand is so easy, HASBRO just forgot how to do it.

[shadzar]

Low-Level Characters in D&D Next

. http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20140113 .

In addition, the game's level progression assumes that 1st and 2nd level each take about one game session.

is this true? if so, why?

i thought DDN was going for a feel of old game play so it wasnt all this "new school" crap in order to draw in older player. those that just level when it happens rather than being on a RL time schedule that a character must be level X after Y hours? 4th edition had this built in, did 3rd?

and can someone tell me, by the letter of the law of D&D, what the length of a game session is? shouldn't that be up to those playing it be it 1 hour on a lunch break, or 32 hours over a weekend, you kow up to the people playing what speed they wish to get level, like "old-school" rather than something the designer decided for everyone that it is "fun"?

[fectin]

Heaven forfend that designers try to make things "fun."

[deaddmwalking]

Personally, I like a game with slower advancement than the default 3.x assumptions. Gaining multiple levels in a single 'adventure' was never particularly appealing.

The advancement from 'dirt-farmer' to 'godling' should take more than a month of game-time. If it's going to be that fast, the setting conceits should reflect that.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I think that the simplest change that doesn't make it take even more real-time to get to 20th level is to add the assumption that adventuring isn't nonstop, and that there are long breaks between the ones you play and gain levels during.

[sandmann]

those that just level when it happens rather than being on a RL time schedule that a character must be level X after Y hours? 4th edition had this built in, did 3rd?

For groups that like the experience of playing at 1st and 2nd level, DMs can use an optional experience progression that allows for more play at those levels.

[deaddmwalking]

I think that the simplest change that doesn't make it take even more real-time to get to 20th level is to add the assumption that adventuring isn't nonstop, and that there are long breaks between the ones you play and gain levels during.

We've found the easiest change is just to decide when to 'level-up' instead of tracking XP. XP costs aren't particularly meaningful and the accounting portion is about as much fun as tracking encumbrance. So we advance when it 'feels right'. It's usually about once ever 3-4 sessions.

[sandmann]

I think that the simplest change that doesn't make it take even more real-time to get to 20th level is to add the assumption that adventuring isn't nonstop, and that there are long breaks between the ones you play and gain levels during.

We've found the easiest change is just to decide when to 'level-up' instead of tracking XP. XP costs aren't particularly meaningful and the accounting portion is about as much fun as tracking encumbrance. So we advance when it 'feels right'. It's usually about once ever 3-4 sessions.

And do you change speed ? So, do you start slow and then grow faster, or the other way round ? And how do you decide when "the time is right" ?

[deaddmwalking]

And do you change speed ? So, do you start slow and then grow faster, or the other way round ? And how do you decide when "the time is right" ?

If anything, we start slow, then get slower. We've found that high-level play tends to be somewhat disastisfying, so after 7th level, advancement is probably slower than it is from 3rd-7th.

The 'time is right' is based on what type of adventures we want to have. Once you have teleport, you can forget about encountering interesting terrain features, for instance. So if we want adventures that involve traversing overland, we don't advance to 9th. Since our group is pretty much in accord on the pace, when the GM 'feels like it', works for us.

[malak]

I think that the simplest change that doesn't make it take even more real-time to get to 20th level is to add the assumption that adventuring isn't nonstop, and that there are long breaks between the ones you play and gain levels during.

We've found the easiest change is just to decide when to 'level-up' instead of tracking XP. XP costs aren't particularly meaningful and the accounting portion is about as much fun as tracking encumbrance. So we advance when it 'feels right'. It's usually about once ever 3-4 sessions.

I do the same. The main group I DM usually plays one afternoon a month from 13:30 to about 22:30. They level up either every session or every second session. We don't track XP at all, and it works nicely. People who miss more than one session are one level behind, until they join for two consecutive sessions.

Works nicely, most campaigns actually get to higher level (a thing that many campaigns that I play in as player never do).

[Cyberzombie]

We've found the easiest change is just to decide when to 'level-up' instead of tracking XP. XP costs aren't particularly meaningful and the accounting portion is about as much fun as tracking encumbrance. So we advance when it 'feels right'. It's usually about once ever 3-4 sessions.

The majority of groups I've seen have shifted to this system. Leveling up via XP is a mechanic that is dying out.

[Fuchs]

We've found the easiest change is just to decide when to 'level-up' instead of tracking XP. XP costs aren't particularly meaningful and the accounting portion is about as much fun as tracking encumbrance. So we advance when it 'feels right'. It's usually about once ever 3-4 sessions.

The majority of groups I've seen have shifted to this system. Leveling up via XP is a mechanic that is dying out.

We do that as well.

[Dean]

As do my groups. I think any credible level based system in the modern day would write XP-less group-leveling as the default assumption. Anything that doesn't is stuck in the 80's

[BearsAreBrown]

+1 @ fiat group level ups

It does cause problems though. We tended to just ignore XP costs unless they were really bad then we'd just have the person who used them a permanent level behind. Which obviously is stupid.

[shadzar]

the problem some of you are missing is that the game will again be built around something like ECL/CR/etc because there will be set times when a level is expected. and you know they cannot get the math right because they aren't playtesting ALL the monsters, but will place them at a specific level rank and end up with a dragon like in that 4th edition adventure that slaughters everything.

there should NOT be some video game concept of group leveling at point X per the rules, it should ALWAYS be up to the group, and NEVER suggested otherwise.

that is what they did with the 4th math, and look how well that worked?

EDIT: added a missing word.

[deaddmwalking]

there should NOT be some video game concept of leveling at point X per the rules, it should ALWAYS be up to the group, and NEVER suggested otherwise.

Just to be clear, you're repudiating the entire concept of XP as presented, for example, in AD&D 2nd edition?

[Previn]

Query: Are any of you who are advocating throwing away XP for ad hock leveling... new players/DMs, or are you all experienced players with a strong grasp of the rules and power levels?

[deaddmwalking]

Honestly, it can apply to new players, too. Most adventures say 'PCs should be 2nd level when they go to this part of the adventure'.

So, if you go through Part 1, and you get to Part 2, you're 2nd level.

One reason this is particularly good for new players is that it doesn't reward XP grinding. Accomplishing your mission nets you all the XP you need, and going out of your way to kill an extra 40 goblins doesn't get you any more 'raw power' (though it might get you wealth).

[OgreBattle]

I played a short game of ACKS (it eventually died out, was play by post) where exp=gold value of treasure. So it was focused heavily on treasure hunting in a sandbox world. A fun, pure murderhobo experience.

Encumberance rules went into play based on how many giant bags of loot we could haul out of dungeons/ruins/shipwrecks

[Previn]

Honestly, it can apply to new players, too. Most adventures say 'PCs should be 2nd level when they go to this part of the adventure'.

So, if you go through Part 1, and you get to Part 2, you're 2nd level.

Are you talking adventure paths that are split up among multiple books? I don't think I've ever seen in an adventure it saying what level the players should be by a certain point.

RHoD is for 6 to 12, is there some point inside where it tells you when you should be a specific level besides starting out? Or is that information you're inferring from your knowledge of play and grasp of the rules?

One reason this is particularly good for new players is that it doesn't reward XP grinding. Accomplishing your mission nets you all the XP you need, and going out of your way to kill an extra 40 goblins doesn't get you any more 'raw power' (though it might get you wealth).

Wealth often translates into power, so I'm not sure how much you're gaining. I'm also not sure how much new players are about grinding for xp specifically as they are about killing things because it's fun.

[deaddmwalking]

Honestly, it can apply to new players, too. Most adventures say 'PCs should be 2nd level when they go to this part of the adventure'.

So, if you go through Part 1, and you get to Part 2, you're 2nd level.

Are you talking adventure paths that are split up among multiple books? I don't think I've ever seen in an adventure it saying what level the players should be by a certain point.

Not specifically Adventure Paths that are split BETWEEN BOOKS, but I was thinking specifically of adventure paths that are contained within a single book. If Book 1 is levels 1-3 and Book 2 is 4-6, there is an expectation that you hit Level 4 by the end of Book 1, but there may also be an expectation that some parts of the adventure are too hard for level 1, so you should be level 2 or 3 before tackling those parts.

Most stand-alone adventures assume you WON'T gain a level during the adventure, and if that's the design conceit, than players WON'T gain a level during that adventure. If the party is Level 2 and a Level 2 party can be expected to handle all parts of the adventure, there's no reason to level up.

Supermodules tend to require leveling up during the adventure, and not all of them say 'PCs should probably be X level before this part'. But some of them do... If they don't, it could potentially be harder for a new group - but then again, a super module is already harder than a stand alone adventure.

RHoD is for 6 to 12, is there some point inside where it tells you when you should be a specific level besides starting out? Or is that information you're inferring from your knowledge of play and grasp of the rules?

Is that Red Hand of Doom? I'm not specifically aware of it well enough to say. I do remember running the 'Rise of the Runelords' AP, and in that one, specifically, there was talk of a dungeon that the PCs should level up DURING - they should level-up before tackling the more difficult parts of that specific dungeon. Personally, that rate of advancement was too fast for my taste, but most Adventure Path-style advancement has that problem.

One reason this is particularly good for new players is that it doesn't reward XP grinding. Accomplishing your mission nets you all the XP you need, and going out of your way to kill an extra 40 goblins doesn't get you any more 'raw power' (though it might get you wealth).

Wealth often translates into power, so I'm not sure how much you're gaining. I'm also not sure how much new players are about grinding for xp specifically as they are about killing things because it's fun.

If you're fighting Level 1 opponents, and they have 2d10 copper, you can kill millions of them without breaking the wealth guidelines. If you want to get wealthy, you're going to want to kill more powerful opponents that consequently have more treasure. I don't think you need to stick close to the Wealth-By-Level guidelines for 3.x necessarily, but you should probably keep 'tiers' in mind. If your players need magical gear, they probably should be 2nd or 3rd level - so even if they kill lots of sewer rats, they probably won't find a magical primary weapon. But if they advance to 3rd level and deal with 3rd-level threats, they probably will.

[shadzar]

there should NOT be some video game concept of group leveling at point X per the rules, it should ALWAYS be up to the group, and NEVER suggested otherwise.

Just to be clear, you're repudiating the entire concept of XP as presented, for example, in AD&D 2nd edition?

fixed it in my quote here and will fix it in the original post now.

what i am against is the concept that forced leveling as a whole should be done, even suggesting your "we just level when we feel like it" as a default under unified level progression tables.

the whole idea that XP or levels is ONLY a metric for calculating power rather than new horizons is my problem, like in video games where the level grind exists or in TTRPGs where people create the level-grind where it shouldn't exist.

i am fine with saying, here is an XP chart (not unified) of level progression, and somewhere else explain this is D&D heritage and why, and then saying you may level anyway and anyhow you like.

i just do NOT like the idea of a level based on stupid as the default. like 3 encounter per level in 3.x or 10 per level in 4th, or one session per level in DDN. this is just a supermassive railroad built into the core of D&D.

you should be level 5 after playing G1 if you want, and i should be level 2 after it if i want, both starting at level 1. if that makes you ready for G2 and wish to go with it, then you can, but likewise if i want to go with G2 next i can, or do something between G1 and G2. maybe another quest or adventure.

it should not be forced that you must play GDQ series in order and level up for the next one at the end of the last one. that is just a railroad. YOU should be allowed you DING moment to level when you want not be forced to wait, and i should be allowed to bypass the DING and hold at a lower level if i want rather than us both having to be forced to be level 3 at the end of G1 to force you into being ready to play G2, even if you don't want to play it next.

now do you understand where the "level per session" becomes a problem because it railroads the speed of the game, and the game will be designed around that railroad and the train only goes one way.

this is a problem with MOST adventures or series or APs is that they are in EVERY fashion a railroad with little adaptability.

assume this: a new player starts at level 1 and ends the session and is now level 2, but still isn't ready at the end of the next session for all the added things at level 3. then what? they cannot continue the AP or adventure series as a player even though their character is ready for it, because they don't know all the shit the game added yet.


will the optional rule of slower level progression of DDN be applied to adventures, or will adventures be designed with only standard level progression in mind so that new to D&D players or new to RPG, or new to DDN players are left in the dark and screwed unable to continue a series/AP/etc?

Query: Are any of you who are advocating throwing away XP for ad hock leveling... new players/DMs, or are you all experienced players with a strong grasp of the rules and power levels?

i dont mind it as an older player, but it will screw up newer players that don't really understand what a class level represents. it isnt just MOAR POWAHZ! but also in modern D&D design it is increased complexity that is almsot exponential with each level.

this is why the people NOT wanting lots of crap to deal with in TSR D&D could always go with a fighter and jsut play, and those wanting lots of complexity and options to sort through played wizards.

[hogarth]

Are you talking adventure paths that are split up among multiple books? I don't think I've ever seen in an adventure it saying what level the players should be by a certain point.

RHoD is for 6 to 12, is there some point inside where it tells you when you should be a specific level besides starting out?

Adventures that cover 6 levels are a tiny minority. Most adventures cover one or two levels, and I've often seen adventures that cover two levels say "at this point we recommend that the party should be X+1 level" (although not always).

[malak]

Latest Q&A

TL;DR So we had this idea we posted a few weeks ago and now we realized it's stupid and won't work. Therefore casters are going to be fun to play from L1 on while non-casters have two dump-levels full of boring before their other dump-levels full of boring.

Success!


In other news, the fighter getting a second attack is a 'breaking point in complexity.'

[tussock]

At least they get the extra attack at level 5. In another 20 years they might finally get it at level 1.

Forcing other people to convert to a religion, is disgusting.

It is the same thing as rape.

Some good trolling going on in the comments, then. But really, isn't it just saying that the fluff they used to justify skipping through level 1&2 quickly was a lie and the mechanics do nothing special at level 3 after all?

I mean, they've picked that some things also happen at other levels in more than one class too, but it's just 4e-style PR fluff without any support mechanics. And people complained, so they're toning down the suggestion.