This is all going to be old rehashed stuff to an extent, but in the interest in providing a clear window to the general mood on therpgsite about the playtest document, what parts of Next to you really hate?

I did like many elements of the game. But there were a handful of things i disliked:

Fighters Surge: the twice a day thing doesn't make much sense to me. Seem to suggest we will see more "martial dailies" in the game

Luck: i dont like luck as feature of the rogue. Once its established as part of the rules, luck has to be aactual thing in your setting. This has always rubbed me the wrong way.

Themes: this is just a guess, but themes seem a way to sneak 4e style combat roles into the game. Granted they are diminished greatly. But i feel they should just be honest about what they are and call it Combat Role (because i dont consider Lurker or Slayer a theme.

HD: This is a terrible idea. Not just a perversion of an existing term in the game, but it represents everything bad about 4e design (the eurogame idea of keeing everyone in the game at all times)

One day heals: even worse than HD. This basically means no matter how badly the dragon rips me to shreds, i am good as new after 8 hours sleep. It basically forces comic or cartoon style play.

HP definition: i think it is a bad idea to codify what it means at the different watermarks for HP. HP do not need a make over. Just go back to their earlier simplicity. Throw in some options for 4E players, but lots of us were happy with the wat previous editions handled and defined HP.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;547543This is all going to be old rehashed stuff to an extent, but in the interest in providing a clear window to the general mood on therpgsite about the playtest document, what parts of Next to you really hate?

I did like many elements of the game. But there were a handful of things i disliked:

Fighters Surge: the twice a day thing doesn't make much sense to me. Seem to suggest we will see more "martial dailies" in the game

Luck: i dont like luck as feature of the rogue. Once its established as part of the rules, luck has to be aactual thing in your setting. This has always rubbed me the wrong way.

Themes: this is just a guess, but themes seem a way to sneak 4e style combat roles into the game. Granted they are diminished greatly. But i feel they should just be honest about what they are and call it Combat Role (because i dont consider Lurker or Slayer a theme.

HD: This is a terrible idea. Not just a perversion of an existing term in the game, but it represents everything bad about 4e design (the eurogame idea of keeing everyone in the game at all times)

One day heals: even worse than HD. This basically means no matter how badly the dragon rips me to shreds, i am good as new after 8 hours sleep. It basically forces comic or cartoon style play.

HP definition: i think it is a bad idea to codify what it means at the different watermarks for HP. HP do not need a make over. Just go back to their earlier simplicity. Throw in some options for 4E players, but lots of us were happy with the wat previous editions handled and defined HP.

I more or less agree with you.

I'll add in the rogue's "hide behind other party members to get sneak attack".

1. Overall emphasis on "Mother may I"

2. Spamming "swing a sword" or "Magic Missile" or "Radiant Lance" turn after turn

3. Rogue as an ineffective(relatively) combatant

4. Boring as dirt enemies

5. A return to 3E's boring low level play as compared to higher levels

6. The game, as we found playtesting it, is far more random and dependent on the whims of the dice than 4E or even 3E was.

7. An overall lack of content. There just wasn't any meat on the system, and while that freed things up a bit it was a letdown overall.

Quote from: Piestrio;547544I more or less agree with you.

I'll add in the rogue's "hide behind other party members to get sneak attack".

This i agree with as it reminds me of the way sneak attack works in a handfull of mmorpg's ive played and is frankly dumb as heck and implies your party will have a designated tank role in every combat situation.

I don't really have any huge issues right now.

Overnight Healing needs to be reigned back, but that is already on the cards.

Some of spell wording needs tightening, in that its not describing what the spell is actually doing in real world terms. In fact this is probably my number one concern going forwards, we need less game effects and more focus on what is actually fucking happening.

I would prefer class Hit Dice to be reduced, I would like to see Fighters on d8, casters d4 and everyone else on d6. Monster Hit Points are all over the shop, but as their place holders theirs not much point worrying about that.

There are issues with armour and weapons, but again, their just place holder systems at the moment anyway.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;547543Fighters Surge: the twice a day thing doesn't make much sense to me. Seem to suggest we will see more "martial dailies" in the game

Yup. Purely dissociated mechanic, which suggests that the 5E team just fundamentally doesn't understand the problem: There is a sizable group of people who do not like dissociated mechanics. The things you're using dissociated mechanics to accomplish in 4E can almost universally be duplicated without using dissociated mechanics. Find those solutions and everyone* will be happy.

(*For certain definitions of "everyone".)

Fighter's Surge is right on the border for me. Since it involves a tremendous effort, it's closer to the barbarian's rage from 3E ("I can only do this so many times per day before I'm too exhausted to do it again") but the abstraction is even vaguer. But stuff like the rogue's Lucky

QuoteThemes: this is just a guess, but themes seem a way to sneak 4e style combat roles into the game. Granted they are diminished greatly. But i feel they should just be honest about what they are and call it Combat Role (because i dont consider Lurker or Slayer a theme.

I think you're wrong here. The themes we're seeing on these pre-gen characters seem to be primarily about tweaking your character class and not about selecting any kind of "combat role". It all depends on the execution, of course, but this looks like the 3E ranger selecting a combat style (except the choice is broader and potentially more flavorful than that).

QuoteHD: This is a terrible idea. Not just a perversion of an existing term in the game, but it represents everything bad about 4e design (the eurogame idea of keeing everyone in the game at all times)

Agreed 100%. Again, it's an indication that they just fundamentally don't understand what's wrong with 4E. Or it indicates exactly what I said several months ago: A successful 5E cannot be designed. WotC has painted themselves into a corner.

One day heals: even worse than HD. This basically means no matter how badly the dragon rips me to shreds, i am good as new after 8 hours sleep. It basically forces comic or cartoon style play.

QuoteHP definition: i think it is a bad idea to codify what it means at the different watermarks for HP.

One of the things I think 4E introduced that they should absolutely keep is the "bloodied" condition: It's a useful mechanical tag that you can hook all kinds of things to.

Ironically, their description of hit points in 5E instead inherits the deeply flawed conception of how hit points work from Star Wars D20 VP/WP system and is the complete antithesis of the bloodied condition.

On a related note, one of the things that's increasingly bugging me is the fighter's Reaper ability. Since hit points only work right if a lost hit point always represents a physical injury, what the Reaper ability means is that a fighter literally can't miss. 1st level fighter against Cyrano de Bergerac? He hits Cyrano every single round.

Quote from: Piestrio;547544I'll add in the rogue's "hide behind other party members to get sneak attack".

That's actually a halfling skill though, right?  So all classes, as long as they are a halfling, can do this to gain advantage.

As far as the OP, the only thing that really bothers me is the healing mechanic.  I can even get by with the HD healing surges, but the full heal once per 8 hours is ridiculous.

Then the things that bother me just a bit are the at-will MM and ice spells.  They seem a bit too powerful to be at will things.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;5475451. Overall emphasis on "Mother may I"

2. Spamming "swing a sword" or "Magic Missile" or "Radiant Lance" turn after turn

3. Rogue as an ineffective(relatively) combatant

4. Boring as dirt enemies

5. A return to 3E's boring low level play as compared to higher levels

6. The game, as we found playtesting it, is far more random and dependent on the whims of the dice than 4E or even 3E was.

7. An overall lack of content. There just wasn't any meat on the system, and while that freed things up a bit it was a letdown overall.

If you play D&D like a videogame, you'll always be disappointed when it doesn't have shiny graphics.

1. Damage on a miss.

2. At will regular type spells (magic missle).

3. Healing is way over powered.

4. Too many MMO diss associated mechanics.

I like a lot of what I see, but the above will mean I never play it. I already have other systems (1E, PF) that if I have to house rule it too much I won't bother.

Show me a lot of these issues are removed from core, but will be in a splat book for those who want it, and I'll probably buy the core.

Quote from: Lilaxe;5475651. Damage on a miss.

2. At will regular type spells (magic missle).

3. Healing is way over powered.

4. Too many MMO diss associated mechanics.

I like a lot of what I see, but the above will mean I never play it. I already have other systems (1E, PF) that if I have to house rule it too much I won't bother.

Show me a lot of these issues are removed from core, but will be in a splat book for those who want it, and I'll probably buy the core.

All those things.  Damage on a miss and the overpowered healing are the worst offenders, IMO.  I haven't seen too much of the "MMO elements" creeping back in though.

However, I don't like the resting system.  Too clunky.

Oh and opposed die rolls for spells.  Although you could make the argument it isn't any different from "I roll my damage, you roll your save" ...

The poor design trifecta of healing, HD, and monster hit points is the most glaring to me. Although fighter surge sounds like a holdover from 4E.

The impression that I get is that the design team at WotC needs to go play more older editions of D&D so they can see when they are reinventing the wheel in 5E. This wouldn't be such a problem if WotC under Hasbro didn't habitually fire their experienced writers and then have to hire freelancers to do their writing.

As it is, I cannot see why I would go through the effort to put together a group to play this edition of Dungeons & Dragons--online or in-person--when the same gameplay experience could be had at a far more convenient way by firing up a MMORPG or CRPG and playing that instead.  World of Warcraft gives me this experience.  Diablo 3 gives me this experience.  Other games from these genres give comparable experiences.  They are more popular, easier to do, and better-supported than anything WOTC could possibly offer.

D&D5--as with D&D4--is attempting to ape the conventions and experiences of a medium other than its own, and by doing so demonstrating the superiority of that medium in making those experiences happen.  I cannot see why someone who is not already dedicated to tabletop RPGs would bother trying more than once or twice.

D&D3x can produce an entirely different and unique experience that plays to the strengths of the tabletop RPG medium.  Pre-3e editions reliably do just that.  The issue is that the experiences offered are very different to what the MMORPG and CRPG media offer, despite sharing the trappings and thus a confusion arises; folks think that they're both ducks, when one is actually an entirely different sort of bird.

A new edition of D&D, to be successful, must single out that experience and break it down for a generation that does not come to it naturally due to that strong influence from competing media.

I just remembered: Wizard spells get harder to save against as the wizard levels up.

That full heal thing, really. Easily remedied, though (and I like the HD-based healing). Anyway, still pretty interested in playing this, so they must be doing something right.

Quote from: Melan;547623That full heal thing, really. Easily remedied, though (and I like the HD-based healing).

I don't know if it's as easy as I first thought because it seems monster hp are based on the assumption that the PCs will be at full hp when they meet the encounter.

On the surface it seems easy enough just to ignore that rule, but then I think you'd also have to reduce the hp of all the monsters.  And for God's sake, they better have an easy way to do random monster hp.