Thoughts after playing
Nov 8, 2012 18:22:34 GMT -8
Post by HyveMynd on Nov 8, 2012 18:22:34 GMT -8
So I finally played a session of D&D Next last night, meaning I can give "real" feedback instead of just theoretical feedback.
Overall, I had a good time playing, but I suspect that was more due to the company and the chance to play an RPG after a long hiatus than anything to do with D&D Next itself.
I built all the characters for the session rather than spend time doing it with everyone at the table. We had a limited play window, and we all wanted to get right to it. Building characters was pretty fun, but I've always enjoyed that aspect of D&D and other RPGs.
With the four components of Race, Class, Background, and Speciality, you can make a huge number of characters. I intentionally set out to make weird or unconventional characters to test the system and was pretty happy. Frankly, I don't see a reason why Wizards needs to make classes other than the "core four" of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard with the options they're provided. They just develop additional Backgrounds and Specialties and players can make the other classes. Case in point, I was able to make a decent Ranger-type character using both the Fighter and the Rogue as base classes, I made a Barbarian using the Fighter, a Paladin using the Cleric, and an awesome "Arcane Infiltrator" with the Wizard as a base class. Are they exactly the same as the "real" classes they were trying to emulate? No. But they were close enough for my tastes. I'd really like to see WotC leave the class list at just four. Of course I know that's not going to happen.
D&D Next has also done a pretty good job of making lots of Race/Class combinations viable. Yes, some choices are better than others because of the Racial Traits characters get. Increased damage with longbows and +1 DEX mean Wood Elves are a great choice for ranged Fighters or Rogues. Small size, an ability to both move through and hide behind larger creatures means halflings make great sneaky Rogues. Increased Hit Dice and a +1 CON make Dwarves good choices for "tank" Fighters. But I always felt as if the choices I had were nearly equal, rather than one being overwhelmingly better than the other.
I do feel that the Human is rather overpowered. +2 to a single Ability of your choice and +1 to all the others seems huge, even with no other abilities. I built a High Elf Wizard then built a similar Human Wizard to compare the two. By choosing certain Backgrounds and Specialties, I was able to replicate nearly all of the High Elf's racial abilities in the Human character and give him better stats to boot. So I think the character options need some tweaking. But overall I'm impressed with it.
The game plays similar to previous editions of D&D, as you would expect. One thing that felt "off" to me was the skills. Combat is D&D Next is very clear cut. Again, as you would expect from D&D. The rules are very clear on what happens, what players can do, and how the GM handles all the different character actions. But there are no real guidelines for how to handle skills. There are just broad suggestions of what the skills cover, but no real examples.
As a fan of "storytelling" games this shouldn't bother me. I have no problem in using common sense and group consensus to make game rulings. But this felt like two very different halves of the same game. They didn't mesh very well at all. Combat is all about hard numbers and very specific mechanical effects, which the skills don't provide. It left the GM scratching his head a lot about what effect a skill should have when used in combat. So I would like to see the section on skills tightened up a bit.
But overall it was a positive experience. I didn't hate the game, but nothing in the system made me stand up and cheer, either.
Overall, I had a good time playing, but I suspect that was more due to the company and the chance to play an RPG after a long hiatus than anything to do with D&D Next itself.
I built all the characters for the session rather than spend time doing it with everyone at the table. We had a limited play window, and we all wanted to get right to it. Building characters was pretty fun, but I've always enjoyed that aspect of D&D and other RPGs.
With the four components of Race, Class, Background, and Speciality, you can make a huge number of characters. I intentionally set out to make weird or unconventional characters to test the system and was pretty happy. Frankly, I don't see a reason why Wizards needs to make classes other than the "core four" of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard with the options they're provided. They just develop additional Backgrounds and Specialties and players can make the other classes. Case in point, I was able to make a decent Ranger-type character using both the Fighter and the Rogue as base classes, I made a Barbarian using the Fighter, a Paladin using the Cleric, and an awesome "Arcane Infiltrator" with the Wizard as a base class. Are they exactly the same as the "real" classes they were trying to emulate? No. But they were close enough for my tastes. I'd really like to see WotC leave the class list at just four. Of course I know that's not going to happen.
D&D Next has also done a pretty good job of making lots of Race/Class combinations viable. Yes, some choices are better than others because of the Racial Traits characters get. Increased damage with longbows and +1 DEX mean Wood Elves are a great choice for ranged Fighters or Rogues. Small size, an ability to both move through and hide behind larger creatures means halflings make great sneaky Rogues. Increased Hit Dice and a +1 CON make Dwarves good choices for "tank" Fighters. But I always felt as if the choices I had were nearly equal, rather than one being overwhelmingly better than the other.
I do feel that the Human is rather overpowered. +2 to a single Ability of your choice and +1 to all the others seems huge, even with no other abilities. I built a High Elf Wizard then built a similar Human Wizard to compare the two. By choosing certain Backgrounds and Specialties, I was able to replicate nearly all of the High Elf's racial abilities in the Human character and give him better stats to boot. So I think the character options need some tweaking. But overall I'm impressed with it.
The game plays similar to previous editions of D&D, as you would expect. One thing that felt "off" to me was the skills. Combat is D&D Next is very clear cut. Again, as you would expect from D&D. The rules are very clear on what happens, what players can do, and how the GM handles all the different character actions. But there are no real guidelines for how to handle skills. There are just broad suggestions of what the skills cover, but no real examples.
As a fan of "storytelling" games this shouldn't bother me. I have no problem in using common sense and group consensus to make game rulings. But this felt like two very different halves of the same game. They didn't mesh very well at all. Combat is all about hard numbers and very specific mechanical effects, which the skills don't provide. It left the GM scratching his head a lot about what effect a skill should have when used in combat. So I would like to see the section on skills tightened up a bit.
But overall it was a positive experience. I didn't hate the game, but nothing in the system made me stand up and cheer, either.