Any thoughts on the playtester Kit just released?

[nightstorm]

It seemed to me like a more basic 3.0 leaning toward a Castle and Crusades approach esp with rolling attributes.

[Rigon]

It seemed to me like a more basic 3.0 leaning toward a Castle and Crusades approach esp with rolling attributes.

I'll give my thoughts as soon as I'm able to download it. Stupid link keeps sendig me to the sign up page.

R-

[Peter]

If you got the first email and were able to sign up. Than you can download from this link while signed in with your wotc account.

http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers ... /a_id/2242

[MormonYoYoMan]

As in "HTTP Error 400. The request URL is invalid."

[Peter]

Are you signed in? I just tried it again a minute ago and it downloads.

Try this link

http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers ... /a_id/2230

Than click download. The other link was a direct link.

[MormonYoYoMan]

Page /app/answers%20...%20/a_id/2230 not found.


I'm guess that they've either over-protected it, or their servers are being taxed to their limits.

[Rigon]

I've tried everythng I can find to try. Guess I'll just wait a few day to try again.

R-

[Relaxo]

I'm having similar problems. I can't even get the account activation link to work.
grrr.

[mordrene]

It seemed to me like a more basic 3.0 leaning toward a Castle and Crusades approach esp with rolling attributes.

I agree. i guess if you cant be cnc, copy it.

you can tell they were really wanting to bridge the gap they created with 4.0 and bring all gamers back to dnd. The adventure they added is B2 sans keep. so far good job wotc. however i have faith they will screw it up.

[Arduin]

I agree. i guess if you cant be cnc, copy it. .

True. But, for most of those they chased away it's probably too late. Also, the bad economy doesn't help with getting players to pay out for a new game that is similar to what they are already playing

[tylermo]

I'm going to download it, but I don't have anything riding on 5E. For at least 7 years, I have been content playing games other than the name brand(for fantasy). I think C&C was likened to Dr. Thunder instead of Dr. Pepper. I guess I'm happy with the Thunder. Money is tight for me, and will be for at least the next 20 years. Besides, C&C is well supported, and while not a perfect beast,it more than works. If 5E is good, I'll play in somebody's game(if I can squeeze it in with my C&C and Savage Worlds).

[redwullf]

So, individual interest in D&D Next aside, some of the mechanics are interesting. Primarily the "Advantage / Disadvantage" mechanic. The idea is to make conditions which favor or hamper a character (or opponent) more universal, rather than having a list of die modifiers for various conditions. Rather than saying "this condition imposes a -2 to hit" and "that condition grants a +4 to such and such skill check" - the character (or creature) is instead said to have (or grant) advantage or disadvantage. Once you've figured out if someone has advantage or disadvantage, the mechanic is simple: Roll 2d20 rather than 1 die for your skill check, saving throw, or attack roll. If you have advantage, you take the higher of the two dice and if you have disadvantage you take the lower of the two dice.

Folks have already broken down what this means in terms of numbers, and the end result is that the mechanic provides the biggest boost/penalty at the middle range of what you're attempting (say a DC or AC 12 or 13). In the middle you'll gain the equivalent of a +5/-5 bonus or penalty, and this tapers off at the ends of the spectrum, down to a +1/-1 at a DC/AC of 1 or 20. This is a much more interesting mechanic than a flat bonus, and makes for some exciting die-rolling situations.

Discuss.

[Sir Ironside]

So, individual interest in D&D Next aside, some of the mechanics are interesting. Primarily the "Advantage / Disadvantage" mechanic. The idea is to make conditions which favor or hamper a character (or opponent) more universal, rather than having a list of die modifiers for various conditions. Rather than saying "this condition imposes a -2 to hit" and "that condition grants a +4 to such and such skill check" - the character (or creature) is instead said to have (or grant) advantage or disadvantage. Once you've figured out if someone has advantage or disadvantage, the mechanic is simple: Roll 2d20 rather than 1 die for your skill check, saving throw, or attack roll. If you have advantage, you take the higher of the two dice and if you have disadvantage you take the lower of the two dice.

I gotta say I like this rule. It pretty much falls under a type of rule that fits my GMing style.

[Arduin]

Once you've figured out if someone has advantage or disadvantage, the mechanic is simple: Roll 2d20 rather than 1 die for your skill check, saving throw, or attack roll. If you have advantage, you take the higher of the two dice and if you have disadvantage you take the lower of the two dice.

Sounds interesting. But, from your description there is only one modifier possible. (2D20 high/low)...

[redwullf]

Once you've figured out if someone has advantage or disadvantage, the mechanic is simple: Roll 2d20 rather than 1 die for your skill check, saving throw, or attack roll. If you have advantage, you take the higher of the two dice and if you have disadvantage you take the lower of the two dice.

Sounds interesting. But, from your description there is only one modifier possible. (2D20 high/low)...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is that a question, a misunderstanding, a critique, or something else?

[Arduin]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is that a question, a misunderstanding, a critique, or something else?

eg. + 2 to hit or +4 to hit or +6 to hit (for different circumstances) = 3 different mods. 2D20 high/low = 1 mod if advantage, 1 mod if disadvantage. = less choices for GM.

(the bonus/penalty for the 2D20 method is a bit >3)

[Lord Dynel]

I'm liking it, so far. I like that a lot of things that were classified as skills or feats are now integrated into the game naturally (Weapon Finesse, for example, and the jump skill). Don't particularily care for the "short rest" mechanic, but it's tolerable. And on skills, looks like they'll be a bit more down-to-earth with the checks, as in I don't see a skill ranks per level element. The AC rules were kind of cool, in my opinion.

All in all, I think we're going to get a game thats a little bit of this and a little bit of that - that looks and feels a lot like other editions in different aspects. I think there off to a decent start.

[finarvyn]

I've been reading the rules for a couple of days now and am interested in running a trial game to see how it plays. The neat thing (to me) is the general return to the roots of the hobby, philosophy-wise. I know that the Master Plan eventually is to add in supplement books with more options for 4E players, but at the moment it's pretty mean and lean.

[Ieuane]

Anyone else notice the small blurb on the pre-gens, "For a more old school experience, don't use background and theme." I'm not sure if that's sarcastic, or sincere, but it's cool either way.

Background and Theme look to be two of the "modules" to the core. Background bringing in +3 modifiers to specific Attribute/Skill checks and Feats, and Theme bringing in fighting stances and that sort of thing.

What jumped out at me was the absence of an attack bonus connected to level. For the pre-gens at least, each level adds an ability/spells, more hp, and more HD to recover hp. That might be one of test targets of the playtest, plus the disadvantage/advantage mechanic.

What I see so far is a fast-forward continuation of the Essentials revisions to 4e, but with the grid cast to the curb. That's major. And there's a more relaxed sensibility, and deference to the DM, to the rules, if that makes any sense.

[concobar]

I have read it and like the direction the designers are going. will it make me drop PF? time will tell.

[redwullf]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is that a question, a misunderstanding, a critique, or something else?

eg. + 2 to hit or +4 to hit or +6 to hit (for different circumstances) = 3 different mods. 2D20 high/low = 1 mod if advantage, 1 mod if disadvantage. = less choices for GM.

(the bonus/penalty for the 2D20 method is a bit >3)

In most cases where an attribute check is involved, the DM still controls the DC. Outside of straight combat rolls, the DM has a lot of latitude.

[redwullf]

We kicked off the play test last Friday and had a good time. We cleared an entire set of Kobold caves in one evening's play. Compared to our usual PF campaign, that is saying A LOT. This game moves very fast with quick and easy resolutions. There was some squabbling about what an "obstruction" is in regard to the Wizard's at-will magic missile, but a trip to the discussion boards put that one to rest.

Overall very pleased and feeling optimistic about the next iteration of the original FRPG.

[Arduin]

Outside of straight combat rolls, the DM has a lot of latitude.

Meh, one single constant mod for combat situations is pretty lame.

[Rigon]

I've read through the "How to Play" guide and the "DM's Guidelines" sections. There are some very interesting things in there to be sure. I like the idea of Advantage/Disadvantage. Short and Long Rest healing is a bit video game-ish for me. I like how "skills" and saving throwsare now rolled into the core mechanic of attribute checks (ala C&C). I like having opposed checks via the Contest roll. I think I'm gonna like the way spells and magic play out with the built in system for casting memorized spells and Rituals.

I still need to print out the beastiary and the adventure and give them a good reading, but so far I like the direction WotC are going in.

R-

[finarvyn]

I've been reading threads like these on several gaming boards and there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for the advantage/disadvantage rule. Pertty simple, once you think of it.

[Julian Grimm]

The only thing I can add to this is that I have read the document and liked it. If things continue in this direction I can see 5e on my shelf.

[finarvyn]

I will say that I am a little disturbed by the number of posters who say something to the effect of "I haven't actually looked at the playtest doccuments but I don't like it."

I understand folks reading others' opinions and using that to help you form your own, but it does seem odd to admit to having no personal knowledge but a strong opinion.

So far most of the negative reaction seems to be from the 4E folks who are bummed that the playtest only has core elements in it, since they are wanting more bells-and-whistles.

[concobar]

what is old is new again.

[MattyHelms]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is that a question, a misunderstanding, a critique, or something else?

eg. + 2 to hit or +4 to hit or +6 to hit (for different circumstances) = 3 different mods. 2D20 high/low = 1 mod if advantage, 1 mod if disadvantage. = less choices for GM.

(the bonus/penalty for the 2D20 method is a bit >3)

You can apply multiple advantages and disadvantages. Advantages and disadvantages cancel each other out. You only roll on which one you have more of.

[redwullf]

I will say that I am a little disturbed by the number of posters who say something to the effect of "I haven't actually looked at the playtest doccuments but I don't like it."

I understand folks reading others' opinions and using that to help you form your own, but it does seem odd to admit to having no personal knowledge but a strong opinion.

So far most of the negative reaction seems to be from the 4E folks who are bummed that the playtest only has core elements in it, since they are wanting more bells-and-whistles.

+1

My suggestion is to not only grab the play test and read the rules, but to play a session - even if it's just a couple of encounters. It's one thing to poo-poo a rule and another to try it in action and realize it's actually pretty slick (such as advantages/disadvantages).