D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Jerthanis]

Most of our argument can really be summed up as "D&D 5e seems like a fine dungeon simulator" vs. "I want more than a dungeon simulator!" Unless that's resolved, discussing rules is rather pointless.

Add: "I don't even think it's shaping up to be a very robust dungeon simulator either!" and "You know, with some very slight modifications, this core resolution system could well become as robust as to support a wider variety of game types" to what I'm saying, then yeah.

[Kurald Galain]

I think it's fair to say that a good skill resolution system is still desirable for a dungeon simulator. While blackmithing and diplomacy might not be common skills to use in a dungeon, climbing and sneaking would be, and it wouldn't do to have the clumsy dwarf in platemail randomly out-sneak the cunning elven rogue on a semi-regular basis.

And with the skill system from the playtest, that is precisely what happens.

[Stubbazubba]

With the modular approach that 5e is touting as its major feature (or was, they've cut back on that rhetoric recently), we should be able to play it as just a dungeon simulator OR much more, OR other stuff with no dungeon simulator under it. Ideally. So, talking about a generic resolution system for things you want to largely skip over in your game, and making that resolution system satisfying, is great. Then, we can break out the varying levels of combat rules we want, social rules, crafting, realm management, all the above, and mix and match. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.

[Ashdate]

With the modular approach that 5e is touting as its major feature (or was, they've cut back on that rhetoric recently), we should be able to play it as just a dungeon simulator OR much more, OR other stuff with no dungeon simulator under it. Ideally. So, talking about a generic resolution system for things you want to largely skip over in your game, and making that resolution system satisfying, is great. Then, we can break out the varying levels of combat rules we want, social rules, crafting, realm management, all the above, and mix and match. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.

As much as I would love to believe that this purported modules can plus every hole in the leak that appeared in the 5e playtest ship, I don't particularly find it a useful argument for the system as presented. Forgive me, but I'm personally not going to fawn over a system of "could-be's".

If the "modularity" of the system is supposed to be a key feature, they should have put some into the playtest (and not have given a strict dungeon crawl with it). I mean, I dunno, congrats Wizards? You've made my 4e group completely uninterested to play your bare-bones game. I don't really see that as a plus for Wizards.

[Draz74]

I don't deny that, but zones are necessarily less granular. I think a truly modular system should be able to support both though.

You could do things like, "you are two empty-groups away from the monsters" if you want to add longer distances or larger areas. Or break up a room into zones. A small courtyard might have the courtyard zone (center), plus ancillary zones at the gatehouse entrance (south), the keep entrance (north), the parapet stairs (east), and the secondary buildings (west). So a fighter taking up position in the courtyard zone can effectively dominate the battlefield by restricting access to other zones, without us worrying too much about where, exactly, he is. And that still leaves plenty of narrative goodness -- the rogue dashing up the parapet steps, dueling with the assassin, the wizard at the gatehouse trading spells with the warlock at the keep, and so on. If the rogue advances too far, a new zone opens up (the east castle walls zone), and so on an so forth.

I've continued some thoughts along these lines in a new thread on the Homebrew forum. Input is very appreciated.

[1337 b4k4]

If the "modularity" of the system is supposed to be a key feature, they should have put some into the playtest (and not have given a strict dungeon crawl with it).

Well, given that the play test isn't over, it seems likely that they will put modularity into the play test.

Of course what you really meant was that they should have included it in the first round of play testing. Honestly, I think you misunderstand what a play test (or at least this particular one) is supposed to be, and to be fair it's not really your fault. Most companies these days when they release a "beta" or a "play test" of their product, what they're usually doing is releasing a full product a few months or weeks before launch, hoping to catch any show stopper bugs before the final release. Not testing to develop the product itself.

WotC on the other hand appears to be looking to test the actual system itself, from the ground up. Which means you release multiple play tests, in small chunks, over time, each new chunk building on the last. They couldn't release modularity first because they needed to make sure the core that all the modules would be built on or modify was solid and understood first. That way, when they get feedback on the modules, they know how it affected the core and whether it broke things in unexpected ways, or whether someone didn't understand the core, and thus didn't realize the module wasn't breaking anything.

If I had to guess, the next round of the play test will be mostly the same stuff, reworked from some of the feedback, and maybe a tactical combat module. They won't introduce too much more as they need to know if the changes made to core have improved things, but being public facing, they'll likely include the tactical module as a bone to the 4e players, and likely to get some feedback as to whether having that module solves issues, or if people still think even with the module, the core needs to be reworked more.

Understand that the way WotC is running their play test, is much more like a company runs their internal tests. Little bits at a time that add up to a whole system later. It's not the "stress test" tests that most companies these days use.

[Siegel]

I think it's fair to say that a good skill resolution system is still desirable for a dungeon simulator. While blackmithing and diplomacy might not be common skills to use in a dungeon, climbing and sneaking would be, and it wouldn't do to have the clumsy dwarf in platemail randomly out-sneak the cunning elven rogue on a semi-regular basis.

And with the skill system from the playtest, that is precisely what happens.

When everything arround you is hostile against you and against eachother than diplomacy becomes really important really fast.

[JoeMac307]

Understand that the way WotC is running their play test, is much more like a company runs their internal tests. Little bits at a time that add up to a whole system later. It's not the "stress test" tests that most companies these days use.

I think 1337 b4k4 is really striking the nail on the head here. From what I can tell, this is just the first of many tests to come, and each test is meant to test one facet of the game at a time.

Besides, if they gave us a play test that was 99% finished, why the heck would people plug down money for the new DMG and PHBs?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Of course what you really meant was that they should have included it in the first round of play testing. Honestly, I think you misunderstand what a play test (or at least this particular one) is supposed to be, and to be fair it's not really your fault. Most companies these days when they release a "beta" or a "play test" of their product, what they're usually doing is releasing a full product a few months or weeks before launch, hoping to catch any show stopper bugs before the final release. Not testing to develop the product itself.

WotC on the other hand appears to be looking to test the actual system itself, from the ground up. Which means you release multiple play tests, in small chunks, over time, each new chunk building on the last. They couldn't release modularity first because they needed to make sure the core that all the modules would be built on or modify was solid and understood first. That way, when they get feedback on the modules, they know how it affected the core and whether it broke things in unexpected ways, or whether someone didn't understand the core, and thus didn't realize the module wasn't breaking anything.

There's an aspect I think you're missing here: Playtesting is not cheap. Especially playtesting on such a mass scale as this. There's only so many iterations of the game that WotC is going to be able to run on the open playtest is limited, maybe 10 at absolute maximum. When you only have 10 playtest runs, you need to get as much information out of each playtest as you possibly can.

With that in mind, it's pretty much undeniable that WotC wasted many, many opportunities here. What exactly is the 5E playtest actually investigating? If class features are "iconic" enough? The basic math? The advantage mechanic?

I'm disappointed with the playtest because if they had offered a juicier, meatier system instead of the dry, shriveled mess they've got right now, so much more could have been accomplished. Like, you know, forum discussions about aspects of the playtest other than how shallow and boring it is.

[Kurald Galain]

When everything arround you is hostile against you and against eachother than diplomacy becomes really important really fast.

Sure. So do you think it's acceptable if the brutish dumb half-orc barbarian routinely makes a diplomacy check that the charismatic elven bard fails at?

[Ashdate]

WotC on the other hand appears to be looking to test the actual system itself, from the ground up. Which means you release multiple play tests, in small chunks, over time, each new chunk building on the last. They couldn't release modularity first because they needed to make sure the core that all the modules would be built on or modify was solid and understood first. That way, when they get feedback on the modules, they know how it affected the core and whether it broke things in unexpected ways, or whether someone didn't understand the core, and thus didn't realize the module wasn't breaking anything.

I understand the "model", I just disagree with how slowly they've moved with it. Honestly, 5e at it's core is pretty much a slimmed down 3e (which I've played enough of). The Advantage/disadvantage thing is new but (at least as shown) is not critical to the game. The skill system is a neat idea, but the numbers don't really work as is. I'm not saying I don't appreciate their efforts, but the core "roll dice and add numbers" has been tried and tested for many years, particularly regarding d20s.

I'm not asking for Wizards to deliver me a product that is 90% complete and ask me how it plays. I'm asking for Wizards to think seriously about what it is that needs testing. I already know how rolling a d20 and adding a modifier works for combat (it's barely changed since the beginning after all). You want modularity to be a big part of your system? Then throw a few examples in. Heck, set up different encounters where the module asks us if we want to try something new. "We're introducing attacks of opportunity here. Are they simple enough ? Does your group like using them?"

And especially give me a module that asks my players to use skills (or rewards them for having them), give me and my players a solid idea about advantage/disadvantage (especially how it would work in social situations). Let us test these new things! If I'm the DM, I want as clear as idea of these kinds of things!

I mean, heck, put aside balancing mechanics and whatever: Wizards had an opportunity to really push out a vision of how 5e would play, and I think it's a shame that they haven't. Rather than making me confident that 5e will be something my players will enjoy, it's instead made me wonder if they've really articulated that vision themselves, of if they're making it up as they go along.

[Stubbazubba]

With that in mind, it's pretty much undeniable that WotC wasted many, many opportunities here. What exactly is the 5E playtest actually investigating? If class features are "iconic" enough? The basic math? The advantage mechanic?

I agree. People are giving WotC way too much credit for this playtest. I was somewhat surprised to see that it wasn't a finished product already, but now it only appears that while WotC may want to do an actual, large-scale playtest phase, they haven't a clue as to how to go about doing it. This playtest was completely directionless. Except for the Armor tables, the Ambusher feat, and a handful of other glaring things, there is nothing that the feedback can help with. Whether or not the Fighter is "too powerful" changes depending on which forum you ask. Whether or not the Cleric and Wizard spells render the Fighter a second-string class, likewise. The Skill system so far? Just like the above two.

Here's my theory as to why this playtest failed to accomplish almost anything; they are still trying to crowd-source the design goals. As they did with the Legends & Lore polls, they are trying to get the community to tell them what to build. That's...terrible, in so many ways; it will not work. Once again, refer to that famous Penny Arcade comic about getting "your group's feedback." Wizards needs to focus their intent for 5e, choose a vision and then realize it. Admittedly, that's what they did with 4e, and it didn't go over too well with most folks, so I can understand why they're wary of trying again. But this will not produce anything better, in fact it'll probably be much worse; an inconsistent collage of differing - and sometimes conflicting - designs and mechanics.

[Draz74]

The Advantage/disadvantage thing is new but (at least as shown) is not critical to the game. The skill system is a neat idea, but the numbers don't really work as is. I'm not saying I don't appreciate their efforts, but the core "roll dice and add numbers" has been tried and tested for many years, particularly regarding d20s.

(This is a response to the whole discussion, not just the quoted text.) Well, there you go: you've drawn some conclusions about the core of the new game from the playtest. That was its goal, after all. The fact that you concluded "no, these mechanics don't really work" is still a valid conclusion, and means the playtest can be a success; it means some things that need fixing have been unearthed.

IMO, people need to stop criticizing WotC for releasing a bare-bones ruleset that most companies would have handled internally, and focus on criticizing the things about this bare-bones ruleset that need to change. (The swinginess of skills/ability contests, the issues with the advantage system, the surreal fluidity of tactical movements with no "stickiness" mechanic, the difficulty in getting results out of the Rogue class, the lack of resilience that Saph's group found in the Fighter's numbers, and the way Vancian casting seems poised to utterly dominate the noncasters once more.)

These complaints will get heard more and clearer if people stop protesting the simple nature of the playtest (the Fighter's newb-friendly build choices, the straightforward dungeon crawl module, etc.).

It's a shame that six whole weeks are being spent just on the very basics, yes. But that's the nature of game design -- it always takes longer to write the next version than it takes the playtesters to draw conclusions about the previous version. So patience is essential. It's a shame that WotC aren't good enough game designers to have spotted some of the rules' issues ahead of time -- but heck, we play 3e, we already knew that. At least they're giving us a chance to correct their mistakes early this time.

I'm skeptical that they'll fix everything that needs to be fixed. But at this point, one can still hope.

Except for the Armor tables, the Ambusher feat, and a handful of other glaring things,

Actually, based on my own experiences with game design, these are the sorts of things that WotC needs pointed out from the playtest the least. I.e., they're numerical issues that are easy to fix -- just one pass through the PDF editor and they're done. What's more, they're analytical enough that WotC could probably figure out the issues themselves in time, if they weren't more worried about the more fundamental parts of the system.

They've admitted that the armor table was pretty much written and thrown into the rules last-minute. To me, that's clear proof that it's not what they're worried about or asking for feedback on (yet).

[Kurald Galain]

design goals[/i]. As they did with the Legends & Lore polls, they are trying to get the community to tell them what to build. That's...terrible, in so many ways; it will not work.

That's definitely true. They'd end up with the proverbial "design by committee". Who wants chocolate ice cream mixed with spinach chips?

[Yora]

Really? They did get a lot of response of what people like and what they don't like. That's quite successful, I would say.

[Stubbazubba]

Really? They did get a lot of response of what people like and what they don't like. That's quite successful, I would say.

But it's not consistent; just as many people say that the Wizard feels right as say it's OP as say they like the Skill system as say they don't as say the Fighter is uninteresting as say it's the most creative class. What is Mike Mearls supposed to make of all that? "The feedback from the playtest is back: People like talking about D&D Next! Success! Where's my check?"

[Yora]

Well, what did you expect? That everyone agrees that something is good and another thing is not?

[kyoryu]

But it's not consistent; just as many people say that the Wizard feels right as say it's OP as say they like the Skill system as say they don't as say the Fighter is uninteresting as say it's the most creative class. What is Mike Mearls supposed to make of all that? "The feedback from the playtest is back: People like talking about D&D Next! Success! Where's my check?"

To me, there's a few main things I'd look for out of this:

1) Is there anything that we deliberately held that people don't seem to miss?
2) Are people complaining that the game doesn't support a specific playstyle that's, indeed, one we're trying to support in a primary way?
3) Does the feedback indicate that we're actually supporting a playstyle that will cause people to buy the game?
4) Of the people that seem to enjoy the type of game we're currently supporting, what is the feedback on the content so far? Do people enjoy it? Are there any points of consistently strong feedback?

[Stubbazubba]

To me, there's a few main things I'd look for out of this:

1) Is there anything that we deliberately held that people don't seem to miss?
2) Are people complaining that the game doesn't support a specific playstyle that's, indeed, one we're trying to support in a primary way?
3) Does the feedback indicate that we're actually supporting a playstyle that will cause people to buy the game?
4) Of the people that seem to enjoy the type of game we're currently supporting, what is the feedback on the content so far? Do people enjoy it? Are there any points of consistently strong feedback?

Exactly, there's no indication of what playstyles they're going for. They're throwing this out here and then hoping that the feedback tells them what their design goals should be, instead of stating that and asking, "Does this fulfill X design goal? Yes/no." Otherwise, so many of those questions are actually unmeasurable with the feedback they're getting.

[navar100]

Well, what did you expect? That everyone agrees that something is good and another thing is not?

Yes. It's unexpected to get 100% agreement, though it can happen, but there should be a clear narrative of what's working and what's not. If 100 playtesters are giving 100 different opinions with no consensus, then WOTC learns nothing. At the very least they might gather the fact there is no consensus means the entire game is not working.

[JoeMac307]

At the very least they might gather the fact there is no consensus means the entire game is not working.

Err... maybe I'm in the minority, but I enjoyed the playtest for whatever that's worth... from my POV, it doesn't look like the entire game is not working.

The thing I liked the best about the playtest was that it was enough of a departure from my usual 3.5 campaign that my players were able to point out things they enjoyed and didn't enjoy, and even mentioned some elements from the playtest that they'd like to see house-ruled into our current campaign.

YMMV, of course.

[Dienekes]

Err... maybe I'm in the minority, but I enjoyed the playtest for whatever that's worth... from my POV, it doesn't look like the entire game is not working.

The thing I liked the best about the playtest was that it was enough of a departure from my usual 3.5 campaign that my players were able to point out things they enjoyed and didn't enjoy, and even mentioned some elements from the playtest that they'd like to see house-ruled into our current campaign.

YMMV, of course.

I don't think anyone is saying that the entire game isn't working, just that if out of 100 people there is no similarity to the multitude of complaints presented then it would be.

From what I've seen from a few interviews and Q&As, it looks like they have picked up a few things and the complaints are not that random.

Sure there are dissenters, but for the most part a large majority have claimed that the room full of rats that all get advantage was terrible to run and swarm rules need to be implemented. Fighters need things to do. Ray of Frost needs to be looked at. And so forth. Those seem fairly consistent.

[JoeMac307]

Sure there are dissenters, but for the most part a large majority have claimed that the room full of rats that all get advantage was terrible to run and swarm rules need to be implemented. Fighters need things to do. Ray of Frost needs to be looked at. And so forth. Those seem fairly consistent.

I may have misinterpretted some of the comments I read in this thread...

I thought the assertions being made were:

1) the playtest was worthless (but I found worth in it, so I spoke to that) and
2) the playtest rules made for an experience was unenjoyable / broken / stupid (but I enjoyed it, so I spoke to that as well)

Fair enough, though, after I read your comment and reread the thread a bit, it's clear I'm misinterpretting the gist of what people were getting at.

But your point is interesting... that the playtest didn't entirely result in a cacophony of dissenting opinion, but rather there was consensus in the feedback (which may be of value to WotC)?

All of that being said, I can still see the point that the overall game design seems unfocused and how that could be worrisome... Maybe I'm overlooking that concern because I enjoyed what I saw so far, which I admit is pretty shortsighted on my part.

[Loki_42]

Well, the new Legends and Lore places the upper limit for the next playtest update to the end of the summer. I guess that's not terrible, but it's a lot worse than the week or two I was assuming.

Also, I'm intrigued by their talk about the narrative combat module. What they actually said was vague as hell, but it was enough to get me to at least pay attention.

[Clawhound]

Judging from the the feedback report, they've gotten the information that they wanted from their audience. Interesting seeing what was popular and what wasn't.

Since everything will be built on the core, it's quite worth their while to spend time actually getting to know it.

[1337 b4k4]

Also, I'm intrigued by their talk about the narrative combat module. What they actually said was vague as hell, but it was enough to get me to at least pay attention.

Definitely vague. My SWAG is that they're almost describing a sort of "point buy" combat system, where you build your moves based on a number of conditions that you want to cause or have occur, and purchasing and stacking those conditions add to or subtract from the To-Hit and damage rolls. So instead of pre spelled out powers with specific descriptions, you get something more like "I want to throw sand in the guy's eye to distract him and then trip him to the ground, so I take the "Distraction" effect for a +to hit/-to damage and then the "Trip" effect for another -to damage/prone status.

Could work, could also be vastly confusing and irritating if no properly balanced and too full of options. Like I said, that's my SWAG based on the little bit they've said.

[Dienekes]

Yeah, read that article as well. Actually while I want more bits to play with, I'm glad it's taking them so long. It shows they are actually trying to use the information given to make improvements.

Or they're just really clever about already having it all done.

[kyoryu]

Could work, could also be vastly confusing and irritating if no properly balanced and too full of options. Like I said, that's my SWAG based on the little bit they've said.

HERO System ft(w|l)?

[Craft (Cheese)]

People clearly want more choice in combat, particularly for the fighter. We're going to address that by introducing a maneuver system that players can access by using themes.

So basically, same approach as 3E: You wanna do something interesting? Take the feat for it. Furthermore these are going to be feats that everyone can take, so the Fighter ends up even worse than in 3E because they don't even get more feats than other characters to spend on combat tricks.

Yes, yes, I know they said they're adding "interesting fighter options in addition to the maneuver system." I'm not gonna hold my breath.

We'd like to do an optional rule that adds a critical hit table to the game, along with a critical fumble table.

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

Well, at least it'll be clearly labeled as optional. Hopefully.

(Well, actually, I have no problems with critical fumbles per se. It's just that, one, the game needs to be designed around their existence from the very beginning. They cannot be simply patched in. Two, they need to be implemented as part of a risk-reward curve, not as a simple random punishment.)

For clerics, we're looking at moving healing out of the spell list and making it easy to cast a healing spell and do something such as attack during your turn. We hope that this move lets clerics feel like they have more options than just patching up the rest of the party, while they can also prepare spells such as bless or cause fear with the chance to actually use them, rather than cash them out for healing.

What was so wrong with 3E's solution? Other than the cure spells sucking, of course.

[Kurald Galain]

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

It strikes me that all the horror stories about critical fumbles are not about the concept of fumbles, but about the execution. "You roll a one therefore something bad happens" is a decent game concept. "You roll a one therefore you just stabbed your own throat by accident" is ridiculous and strongly detrimental to gameplay.

So if WOTC manages to come up with a fumble table that doesn't let your character kill himself on a regular basis, it'll probably be okay.