50 Days and Counting

I pre-ordered on Amazon. They have that lowest price guarantee going on. Last week the price was $12 and some change. So, I decided to wait for the weekend, after payday, cause, you know, I'm not made of money. Well, Saturday it was back at $17+. I passed on that, not knowing for sure what the price would do. I felt pretty safe in the idea it would come back down, but didn't know it for a fact. And since a hold will be put on my account, I wanted to hit that price at a low point. Cause, you know, I'm not made of money.

Happily, the price today was $12.65 (or so), and I was a go. Green light. Execute. Now the waiting begins.

There is something I want to mention, 'ere I go. I've seen a lot of hubbub about there being no character generation rules in this set. It comes with 5 pregens, with canned progressions thru level 5. I'm mostly ambivalent about it. I'm getting this for two reasons:

• I want to get a real sense of what the new edition should be. Art, layout, etc.
• I'm a fanboy. Even though 4E turned out not to be my cup o' tea, I always wished I would have entered it with it's red basic box.

As far as what I can and can't do with it in the interim until the "big books" come out, that seems like much ado about nothing. There will be a 48-page pdf (free) containing the meat of character generation from the PHB. If that isn't enough, I have the final playtest pack printed and spiraled (booklet sized, no less). So, I think most of us should have enough of our bases covered to survive until the DMG finally hits in November.

By the way, this will be the last post carrying the "Next" label. From here on, posts relating to the new edition will have the "5E" label.

Manic Fervor

So, in case anyone missed it, I am officially JAZZED about the D&D release. One of the reasons I actually set aside my hesitations about this iteration is Bounded Accuracy. I mentioned it as part of another post, but here is a link to a WotC article talking about in-depth. It is a very cool concept, and this is worth looking at.

Bounded Accuracy

A Follow-up to the "Whore" Post

Ok, I've looked at some higher-res images of the covers at EN World I like the style of it. Not quite as "sharp". They have a little bit of fuzziness to them, which, to me, seems more artistic. One thing I love about them, though: NO Tieflings anywhere to be seen! Hell yeah! If I never see another one of those guys it'll be too soon.

I'm a Whore . . . What of It?

I'm not fooling anyone. I have every edition of D&D made, at least as far as core rules go. I've acquiesced back and forth on Next for a long time. I've printed at least two of the playtest packs. Now, late as usual, I find out that the Starter Set is due in less than 2 months. Here is an ad from WotC's website, D&D Starter Set.

I will be getting this. Period. C'mon, 64-page DM book, 32-page Player book, PC levels 1-5. What's not to love?

Early Thoughts on D&D Next

So, I've skimmed through Next and wanted to share my initial impressions. These are subject to change. I should have a more in-depth perspective next weekend. If we get to playtest today, that is.

I had the entire thing printed at OfficeDepot. It clocked it at well over 300 pages, including the Caves of Chaos playtest adventure. For the $30 pricetag I got a pretty damn complete game. Characters that can advance to 20th level, in a variety of classes. Spells of up to 9th level for clerics, druids, and wizards, along with abbreviated lists for paladins and rangers. A full range of monsters is in the bestiary, including demons, devils, and dragons. Finally, there is a decent assortment of magic items. An experienced DM could get a lot of mileage out of this playtest packet as-is.

Some of the things I am happy with (in no particular order)

Skills and Backgrounds

I like when skills exist to define a character. I want them to mean that a character is better at something than a character who isn't skilled at that same something. I do not like it when skills exclude characters from certain activities. For example, if my guy has the Ride skill, it just means he is particularly apt at riding. If he doesn't, he can still ride, but might encounter problems if he is forced to charge into battle.

The Skill Die is a pretty cool idea. It opens the door for someone to really knock a skill check out of the park, but doesn't remove the possibility of catastrophic failure. It also avoids the pitfall of the escalating DC in lock-step with the improving skill ability.

Backgrounds are ok. They provide a logical framework to hang skills on, as well as providing a minor game effect, mostly tied to role playing. They don't provide any sort of bonus or mechanical interface, which I like. They exist only to tie the character to the setting. Since they aren't mechanical in nature, it would also be easy enough to ignore them altogether.

Feats and Specialties

One of the things that turned me off 3.x was Feats. Not in principle, because I actually like the idea. They were too vital in 3.x, though. And not just in and of themselves, but the right combinations were crucial to player enjoyment. In this playtest packet they are more in line with my desire for them. Like skills, they add a dimension to the character. In fact, I'm not so sure that some of them shouldn't be skills. I think I get why they're not, but I want to wait until I have a firmer grasp before I comment further.

For now, the list is mercifully short, and there are no complicated "feat trees". In fact, there are only seven with other feats as prerequisites, and none of those have other feats as prereqs. Mostly, the prereqs are either a certain level (class not specified), a stat minimum, and/or a certain class ability.

The feats are broken out into four categories: General, Expert, Magic, and Martial. The categories do not seem to exist as "barriers", but moreso to direct class-based bonus feats. For example, any class can take martial feats, but fighters get bonus martial feats at certain levels.

Specialties are pretty much the feat equivalent of backgrounds related skills. They don't provide any benefits whatsoever (beyond what an individual DM or player may read into them). They suggest a list of feats at each "feat level", but it is strictly a suggestion. Specialties would be even easier to ignore than backgrounds. They seem to exist as a "jumping off point" to help a player get into character. As such, they seem to be something new players would benefit from more than experienced players.

Miscellany

• There are only 12 Conditions

• Classes get a +1 to any stat, although it is highly recommended that the bonus be taken in a class relevant stat.

I know there were some other odds and ends I noted, but they slip my mind right now. I'll be back with more later.

More Changes on the Wind

Grab onto something, I'm making a radical course change. Again.

So, I played the included adventure in the Beginner Box with my kids last weekend. I didn't have time to post about it afterwards. We had fun. They enjoyed it more than the previous, old-school style, game. They felt more engaged with the game and that held their interest better. So, I forged on ahead with reading the Gamesmaster's book and ran into a snag. Two, actually.

The first was magic items. It quickly became obvious that the system is designed from the ground up for magic items to be vitally necessary for character success. When there is a base assumption that characters can purchase magic items of all sorts (not just scrolls and potions), that is a red flag. It really smacked of computer games to me, which was a turn-off. I'm completely fine with magic items, but if the system's inherent assumption, and therefore balance, relies on them as part of who the characters are, that's too much for me.

The other thing that put me off was the number of conditions. That was a huge down-side to 4E for me as well. I'm fine with the idea of clearly defined conditions, all collected in one place for easy reference. But, there are twenty-five separate conditions. That is too many for me to track, especially when there is overlap, either in similar names, similar effects, or both.

The "thing" that led me the Beginner Box in the first place was realizing that I want something more "gamey" than the traditional old school experience. I'm fine with skills, as long as they are more for definition than limitation. I'm actually fine with feats, IF they don't lead directly to agonizing hours of min-maxing during character creation. I also don't want endless lists that require a Cray mainframe to handle character creation.

So, I revisited D&D Next. An all-new playtest pack was released on March 20th. I haven't read all of it yet, but I'm liking what I see. I initially liked Next, then it seemed to drift more toward 4E and it lost me. Then, I was in my serious old-school swing and Next seemed too rules-heavy. Now, I am in a place where I can appreciate it on its own merit. I am just looking at it as a game, and not as the successor to my go-to. I'm looking at it just to see if it does what I want it to do.

I also took the time to really figure out what Bounded Accuracy really means. I had written it off as nothing more than a smoke screen to try and trick people into thinking Next would be a real innovation. I was mistaken. In fact, Bounded Accuracy answers a lot of my issues with D&D. I've talked before about not liking how classes improve in a fairly generic fashion. Stat bonuses aside, all characters of a given class/level are pretty much the same, simply because the benefits that accrue with each new level are largely static and pre-determined. With Bounded Accuracy, the player has more leeway to determine in which areas his character improves as he advances in levels.

So, that's where things stand as of now. We are going to playtest Caves of Chaos tomorrow, so hopefully I can give you all an update on how that goes. In the meantime, I can honestly recommend giving this latest playtest packet a look. Pretend it's not even D&D and just look at it as a new RPG. I'm glad I did.

Incidentally, I really am getting a little tired of all the crap I read from detractors about how "(Game X) came out with (rule y) a long time ago. D&D Next is just a bunch of other games' ideas." How many other games followed D&D's lead, all the way back to Runequest and Tunnels & Trolls? Even games that went in the opposite direction owe a nod of thanks to D&D for showing them a way to go. So, if D&D Next "got" advantage/disadvantage from Barbarians of Lemuria, then just look at it as repaying a debt, because without D&D there may not even be BoL.

One Month Later

If only my "one track moods" were as dedicated and persistent as my ADD, what a world that would be. Alas, this is not the case. The "in betweens" I've been afflicted with are still on me, I'm afraid. There's also the little issue of real life (you know, the place where gaming and all that goes with it is NOT of paramount importance). Ugh! What a way to end a summer. At least the Crimson Tide is back on the field.

Anyway, please accept my apologies for this non-post, I just wanted to say Hi and that I am still fairly useless as a gamer/blogger. At least until this doldrum passes. I do constantly pick things up, read them for a page or a couple of days, then put them right back down. I've even dabbled with Next. Blasphemy! There are some interesting ideas starting to come out of that. My initial reaction is that they are good ideas but that they don't necessarily need to be mechanical ideas.

Like Backgrounds. Some nifty ideas to personalize your character, and it's not the end of the world to provide some sort of bonus to something, but they got a little carried away. For example, the Soldier background. Fairly self-explanatory, right? If I were to use something similar, I might tell the player that it means whatever you think it might mean. You automatically keep your gear in good repair, you know how to make and strike a camp, you're used to long marches, and so on. In Next, though, it could mean those things. But whether it does or not, it definitely means you have three particular skills. Period. All soldiers have them.

In spite of the negative tone, I'm not bashing them. It's still in test, so hopefully they will instill some flexibility into the Backgrounds as the process grinds onward.

So, there it is. My first post in a month. Sorry you had to wait a month for this bit of drivel. Hopefully my attention will right itself soon.

Next Thoughts: Spells

I've done an initial read-through of the playtest docs. I think I like what I see, so far. There are some things I am uneasy about, but I'll save that for another post, after I've had time to reread and reconsider.

For now, I want to talk about spells, two in particular.

Next casts cantrips as at-will spells. I'm ok with that, in concept, because I think magic-users should be able to use magic in a fairly organic way and not only in the burn-your-balls-to-cinders way. One of the cantrips, though, is Magic Missile. It is relatively unchanged from any previous version, doing d4+1 damage, at a range of 100'. I don't like it being auto-hit and at-will. The damage may not seem like much, but d4+1 adds up, and the caster gets an extra missile every three levels. So, at 6th level, the caster is automatically inflicting d4+1 on up to three separate targets, or all on a single target. No to-hit roll, no saving throw. If the spell is going to remain a cantrip, I would say require a to-hit roll, otherwise make it a level one spell and require it to be prepared. In that case, maybe add the caster's magic bonus to the damage.

The other spell is Sleep. Maybe they had a good reason to castrate the venerable Sleep spell, I don't know. Good reason or not, castrate it they did. They reduced the range, as well as limiting the effects to a 20' radius sphere. As if that weren't enough, rather than effecting a number of creatures based on HD, it now will not affect any creature with more than 10 HP. The most grievous change of all, though: now targets are allowed a saving throw. I think this weak-ass version of Sleep is more suited to being a cantrip than Magic Missile.

Babies, Bathwater, and House Rules

I hate to admit when I'm wrong about something. Not like a date, or a math problem, but wrong in my thinking. So, here I am to own up to some wrong thinking.

I've been unfair about the latest iteration of D&D currently in playtest. I'm not at all happy with calling it Next, and everytime I did, it was with a sneer (I know you couldn't see it, but trust me, it was there). I haven't given it my fair and honest opinion based on its own merits. Rather, I've been basing my opinion on the opinions of others, and my own preconceived prejudices. I may come to love it like no other. I may hate it more than I hate admitting when I'm wrong. Either way, my feelings on it will be based on what it truly is to me.

Great, so where does the title of this post come from?

Basically, it comes from the same thing that motivated my feelings on Next (I'm calling it that for clarity and expediency). In my current ADD funk (yes, I'm still in it), I was just casting about for something to fixate on, and decided to give the playtest another look. In glancing over the character sheets I noticed that all the characters need 2000 XP for 2nd level and 6000 for 3rd. I groaned. Another run at a unified XP table. I'm not a fan. I'm not all wrapped up in the idea that classes need to be balanced at each level. I prefer individual XP charts to reflect the power each class provides, as well as the dedication needed to attain that power.

It was then I was struck by an epiphany. I've been playing some form of D&D for over 35 years. I've never played it as written. In every single version there has always been something I didn't like, sometimes a lot of somethings. I worked around it and kept going. I didn't wring my hands or gnash my teeth. I didn't look around for the tallest soapbox I could find, just so I could shout about how that version was total shit. I worked with it. I either modified what I didn't like, cut it out, or accepted that even if I didn't like it, it did in fact work as part of the whole.

I didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And another thing . . .

I think we all game to have fun. At least the majority of us. I also think we can all agree that drawn out combats suck, even if you prefer combat-heavy games. In that spirit, I really don't have a problem with the Next Fighter doing damage even if he misses. I've played a lot of fighters, and one thing that has always frustrated the hell out of me is when my dice go cold. So my guy, who is supposed to be a sword-swinging badass, misses more than Mark Reynolds in '09. Meanwhile, the other, non-combat types, are mopping the floor with the bad guys. I'm all for some randomness and excitement, but I don't want to have my character taken from me by a frigid d20. I play fighters because I like to crack heads. Period.

That lead me to another thought. I started thinking about my kids. They've played some, but they're Gen X-Box, so pen and paper is not their go-to medium. They do enjoy it, though, when I can coordinate a time with two teens. Incompetency, as expressed in their character failing at something on their turn, is not something they enjoy. They're not brats, they know they'll miss a roll sometimes, and they understand that mastery is something they have to work toward with their characters. Yet, even understanding that, they play to have fun, and failing utterly 70% of the time is not fun.

It wasn't for me, either. I distinctly recall a 1st level magic-user I rolled up. It was during my very first forays to the community room on the Navy base at Millington, TN, where I first learned to play. I rolled my d4 hit points, wrote down my 1st level spell (Magic Missile) and proceeded up a dusty back stairwell while the rest of the party made a more frontal assault. Something attacked from the shadows, which I blasted with the MM. I'm still not sure what it was, but it had enough hit points to take the missile and knock my ass back down the stairs.

I know my guy was no master wizard, and that 1st level mortality was high back in those days. Those mitigating factors notwithstanding, that was not a fun gaming experience. There were no other games I could get into, those guys weren't allowing second characters, so I went home disappointed. Sure, there were a number of ways that could have been different. I'm not busting on the experience or the edition of D&D. What I am saying is that one of the ways the experience could have been different, and better, would have been more competence at lower levels.

Well, this has turned into something closer to a rant, which is not my desire, so I'm going to wrap this. I will be talking more about that auto damage thing, but in a post dedicated to that topic. Until then . . .

D&DNext Fighters

I'm nobody's expert on Next. I'm signed up for the playtest, and I've read the first release of the playtest rules. I don't follow all the development blogs and interviews, news and soundbites, though. Well, I sort of follow them, by way of the Grumpy Dwarf over at Tenkar's Tavern. In his latest post we find this quote from a Legends and Lore article by Rodney Thompson.

"Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points "

If you recall from my post from December of last year, I proposed that a Fighter's increasing ability should be tied to damage output, not necessarily to the "to hit" bonus. I apologize if I sound boastful, but it really is vindicating when I am on the same page as the designers of the flagship for the hobby. I'm just a guy with an outdated computer and severely restricted resources, and I forwarded a design paradigm six months ago that the "professional" designers have just gotten around to.

Next Hit Dice Tomfoolery

I've read over the playtest stuff a little more. There are a couple of things dealing with Hit Dice that caught my eye. It may be due to the incompleteness of the document, in fact I am sure one of these quibbles is a first-release oversight. Even so, they raise some questions about the direction of the rules concerning Hit Dice, hit points, and healing.

First off, hit points. This one is short and sweet. The rules state that beginning hit points are equal to CON + CON modifier. Survivability boost. I get it. It then goes on to say that when a character gains a level, roll the appropriate HD and add it to the total. If the roll is less than the CON modifier, add the modifier instead (emphasis mine). So, CON mods aren't added to hp after 1st level?

Then, under Resting, it mentions that during a Short Rest a character may be treated using a healer's kit. Each such treatment allows the character to expend one HD. Each HD expended is basically rolled like a, well, like a hit die, and deducted from the character's damage. I can't find any other mention of "expending hit dice" outside the section on Resting, so I'm unclear about the overall effects. It seems like it is just a limiter on non-magical healing. Sort of a reskinning of the Healing Surges, just less potent. More info on it would help.

Oh, one more thing. Also under Resting, it states that after a Long Rest (8 hours) all damage is healed. You do have to have at least one hit point to take a long rest, so if you're at 0 you won't wake up feeling any better.

Let the Games Begin

It's May 24th and we all know what that means. I've looked over the playtest documents. I'll keep this brief.

It looks to me as if their design philosophy was to take the 3.x engine and add some chrome from 4E Essentials. Hit dice are back, as opposed to the fixed hit points of 4E. The magic-user is back to remembering spells. Saving Throws mean what they did pre-4E, although they can be based on any stat. It appears that Healing Surges are gone. Cure Light Wounds once again simply restores 1d8 hps.

There is this notion of Advantages/Disadvantages. Essentially in either case you roll 2d20 rather than one whenever attempting the action in question. If you're Advantaged you keep the better roll, if Disadvantaged you keep the lesser roll. That, my friends, is straight out of Barbarians of Lemuria. I think it is a very neat idea, and have considered it for some of my house rules. Here, though, it leaves me a little flat.

In fact, the wole thing has me scratching my head. I'm predisposed to distrusting big-business rpgs. I have a case of splatbook burnout that will never go away. I desperately want to love every edition of D&D that sees the light of day, though. It is more than the words and art on the page, the same way I am more than the sum of my parts. I love all my OSR stuff, but if a version of D&D came out that I could really get behind I would be all over it. It will have to overcome that predisposed distrust, though. These playtest docs don't really give me much hope that this version is the one.

Like I said in the opening, it strikes me as 3.x with 4E Essentials elements house ruled in. Then there's the Ad/Disad thing. If I want to assemble my own rule set from pieces and parts, I will (see my previous post, which, btw, was written before I saw the playtest docs). I know this is just the first release, but it is the foundation they're going to build on, so while it may change over time, this is fundamentally what Next will look like.

I don't think they're worried about us OSR folks. That's not what the "uniting the editions" crap was all about. After seeing this, I think it is all about trying to lure the disgruntled 3.x folks back from Pathfinder. That's ok, too. Life out here on the fringe ain't so bad.