On 13th Age (My Initial Thoughts, and My Daughter's Character)

There have been many things said on 13th Age so far, and many in-depth and useful reviews about it, so I am not delving into areas that have already been poured over many times.  In short: if you have not yet done so, take some time to read about what others have said, and if you can, try it out through their Organised Play events.

The best one-line summary I have read was that 13th Age was what DnD Next / 5th Edition should have been; without the hate for 4e players, and without the teary apology letter to Pathfinder fans. That is, where many 4e fans have felt 5e has ignored what they enjoyed, 13th Age has kept similar options.  It has been made from the houserules and home sessions of Rob Heinsoo (lead designer, 4e DnD) and  Jonathan Tweet (lead designer, 3e DnD), but has moved onwards, taking elements from each edition and forming something new (instead of simply rolling back to past editions, ala 'Next').

They have some great tricks, some of which can be found in other 'indie' games, but which would work well and be easily implemented in a 3rd or 4th edition game.  The Escalation Die is one I see the most talk about, but after backgrounds, I'm not sure I ever want to return to using skill lists!  4e simplified the skill lists of 3e, but Backgrounds makes them a whole new, easy to use, creature!

There are parts that I am still not too sure about - the "simple" classes (Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger) seem too simple on paper.  I am withholding judgement until I have seen more of them in action, but the latter two in particular have the feel of 'not enough choice' mixed with 'choosing from the same pool again'.  4e ran aground of this with their 'essential' fighters.  You have a pool of powers, and choose some from them.  Then, as you level up, you choose another, from the same pool.  Then another.  Ultimately, despite you gaining levels, the items you choose are getting worse, for all the best (be that mechanical, flavour, or however you chose them) were taken earlier.

But for every element of doubt (Constitution modifier to HP again? +1 to your constitution has huge differences at higher levels) is outweighted by many elements that are great (choosing middle modifiers for defences, more even scores, class and race getting stat bonus options).  Even the whole 'Vancian magic' problem has a simple, if not complete, solution, in that instead of 4e's at-will / encounter / daily slots, each spell slot can be filled with a spell of any kind, thus allowing a purely 3e wizard to be created alongside a wizard matching one from 4e.

When I received my 13th Age book, my daughter (currently 4, at least until the end of the year!) was eager to play this 'new game' with me.  So we sat down with the book, and talked about what she wanted her character to be.  There were times when her attention wavered ("How To Train Your Dragon" was playing in the background), but by dinner time, we had arrived with this:

Clearly, she was heavily influenced by "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit" (she's only seen the first bit of The Hobbit, until they leave the Shire, and none of the LOTR movies...but she's played through the LEGO game, and I have a ...reasonable... collection of the LEGO figures).

Her character was "Grandolf, the Hobbit Wizard" (I wasn't going to go into the hobbit / halfling distinction), and it was played by a Sauraman figurine, because she liked his cloak.  Through some questions, she allocated her stats (10 / 8 / 16 / 18 / 14 / 12) and noted down her defences and hit points.

Ali decided eagerly that one of her backgrounds was going to be that Grandolf liked to breed spiders from eggs (watching the eggs with a telescope (!) to see when they cracked open, and the babies came out). He even carried a spider familiar! 

Strangely, the second background was a lot harder to pry out.  Every question as to what else Grandolf had done or likes to do kept coming back to those spiders...but eventually, we worked out that he also is an avid gardener, having the most colourful garden in the village.  These things turned out to be equally important, and so both gained a +4 bonus.

She then told me that Grandolf grew up on the clouds, which I quickly tied to the Overworld.  It seemed to fit that he should start with 2 points (positive) with the Archmage, and one point (positive) with the high Druid, because of his gardening.

By the time we reached spell choices, I think Ali was wishing she had chosen a simpler character (she did keep eyeing off my Fíli-the-Dwarf-Ranger and his Warg companion. I was making this character alongside her, so that she didn't have to adventure totally alone.).  But with some simple drawings, I described the spell options to her, and she chose them - but the only ability she wanted to write down was "Evasive".  The rest of the numbers were causing her to get a little distracted.

So now Ali has her character sheet, she has a card with her spells written onto it (made by me this time), and she has some dice - this weekend, I foresee some adventuring happening.  And I'm looking forward to it!

DnD Next Playtest Round #2 (p5)

First up: if you haven't already done so, sign up and download the material.  (note that even if you were part of round 1, you will have to 'sign up' again, as they changed their system).  Once you have done that, we can move on!

Part 5: New Classes

In part 1 of my comments on round 2 of the playtest, I discussed the various other aspects in creating a character.  In part 2, I discussed the four classes presented in the playtest material, as well as the new take on themes (backgrounds and specialities). In part 3, I looked in more general terms over other aspects of play, largely following the "How to Play" document.  In part 4, I was focusing on a general look at the equipment and spells presented.  This time, I am briefly looking over the two new classes they have recently released: the Sorcerer and the Warlock.

I have represented my general feelings to each large subject in the title: (-ve) for generally negative feelings, (+ve) for generally positive feelings, and (neutral) if the pros and cons seem to be about the same.

(-ve) Sorcerer

I have always enjoyed the sorcerer.  The 3e version was a way to branch out from the Vancian magic, and the 4e version had a lot of pure elemental fun tied into it.  However, the 3e version still had the problem of being the ugly step child, the second string super hero, or whatever classification you wish to use.  It simply was not as powerful as the Wizard.  It had more flexibility, but gained spells slower, and had none of the Wizard's perks.  So what did they do for 5e?

The first thing to note is that they are again under-performing in the "using magic" area.  Their magic attack score starts out lower, and drops to half of the wizard's at level 4.  Their spell DCs are likewise lower, being two behind at level 4.  They have no spellbook, of course, so lack the large array of spells a wizard will gather over his life, and are stuck with the few they learn.  They only get two cantrips, whereas the wizard gains three.

So, clearly, they are going to get some good, powerful benefits in their spell casting to make up for it, right?

Sadly, no.  Their "Will-Power" allows them to cast exactly the same number of spells that a wizard would cast...except that (as in 3e), they lag a level behind the wizard.  When the wizard gains 3rd level spells, the sorcerer is still getting used to 2nd level spells.  This does mean that they can cast more lower level spells a day, but at the hefty cost of not being able to reach those more powerful, more relevant higher level spells.  (As an aside - this is yet another thing wrong with divorcing "spell level" from "character level".  4e, in giving powers at set levels, removed the need to make some classes lag behind others.  Everyone gained a level 3 power at level 3.)

Sorcerers do get a "Heritage" option (only one is shown in the playtest documents: Draconic).  This gives them stronger hit points and more proficiencies than the wizard, but as the new ability options given encourage the Sorcerer to wade into melee, I'm not sure if it is a true benefit or not.  Surely, if a player decides to keep their sorcerer to the back, they will be sturdier than the wizard, but they will also be ignoring a whole lot of benefits.  Ultimately, though bits of the Sorcerer seem quite powerful, other bits are lacking.  On the whole, I have no real interest in playing this class.

(-ve) Warlock

My favourite character I played in 3e was a halfling warlock known as Marcan.  So much did I enjoy him that I have played a 4e variant in 4 different games, at levels ranging from 1st to 17th.  But not even the first level version could be covered by the rules presented here.

Warlocks in 3e had fewer spells than the wizard or sorcerer, but could use them all at will.  That might have been a good spot to start, but instead, they grabbed the idea of the 4e pacts, and warped them into a poor mechanic for 5e.  Instead of gaining boons from killing enemies, they are now an encounter resource (yes - finally something that is encounter!...even though it should have been far more frequent).  The worst pact boon would be the "fey step" equivalent: teleporting 30ft as an action.  And it uses up one of your two favours! (You also have to use these favours to power your non-minor invocations).

In short, what should have been an array of at-will powers is really only one (Eldritch Blast).  There is a second at-will (Shadow Veil), but spending an action to allow your single move that turn to be slightly less hindered does not sound wise at all.  Yes, you are as accurate as the Wizard, and a little tougher, but unless you want to be a one trick pony, I'd suggest everyone steer clear of this class.  If you really want to play a 3e-ish warlock, go and play the actual 3e warlock.  It was far more interesting (but still not as exciting or fun as the 4e builds).

DnD Next Playtest Round #2 (p4)

First up: if you haven't already done so, sign up and download the material.  (note that even if you were part of round 1, you will have to 'sign up' again, as they changed their system).  Once you have done that, we can move on!

Part 4: Miscellaneous

In part 1 of my comments on round 2 of the playtest, I discussed the various other aspects in creating a character.  In part 2, I discussed the four classes presented in the playtest material, as well as the new take on themes (backgrounds and specialities). In part 3, I looked in more general terms over other aspects of play, largely following the "How to Play" document.  This time, I am focusing on a general look at the equipment and spells presented.

I have represented my general feelings to each large subject in the title: (-ve) for generally negative feelings, (+ve) for generally positive feelings, and (neutral) if the pros and cons seem to be about the same.

(neutral) Equipment

Keeping wealth to a solid starting figure is something I appreciate.  Not changing the exchange rates between coin types is also a blessing, though I don't know why they added in an "electrum piece" (half a gold piece), and don't know if it will really be that useful.

Armour has been expanded back into three categories, with eleven types of armour overall.  However, there is now only one shield.  I'm not sure why no love was given to the shield choice, but maybe too many folk were working on new armours, and there was no one left to design options for both a light and heavy shield? Non-proficiency now only gives disadvantage, which means it may have no effect whatsoever (if you already have disadvantage, they do not stack; and any advantage cancels the disadvantage). 

Weapons feel overly complex.  Previous editions all had similar lists, but it usually filled up over time - it would have been refreshing to see a very basic list of weapons, or fewer categories.  Weapons again deal typed damage (slashing, bludgeoning or piercing), which I like.  I am still unsure if the simplified resistances / vulnerabilities will work, but do look forward to seeing the interaction.  Bows have once again become really long ranged weapons, with the longbow reaching well across the tabletop of any table I have played at.  However, long range only gives disadvantage, which as mentioned, doesn't stack.  A blind archer, shooting a longbow at a target 600ft away, whilst wearing full plate and being surrounded by enemies takes the same penalties as someone who shoots the same bow at a target 155ft away, without any of the other distractions.

(-ve) Spells (general)

Not only have they moved away from the great resource of encounter powers, but they have also changed the time measurement back to minutes.  A spell that lasts a minute is a nuisance to measure.   You have to note when it is cast, count out the rounds, and remember when it should run out.  Even with whiteboards (which we used for 3e), thus sort of limit is annoying.  4e did many things right with spell duration.  Instead of minutes, it was "an encounter" (or 5 minutes outside of battle).  It was cast, it lasted for the rest of the battle.  Shorter things might apply, lasting a round or until a save was made (both very easy to keep track of), and longer ones might last the entire day.  But having spells (especially multiple spells) on a one-minute tracker make tracking them annoying and will slow things down.

Again, I want to reiterate my dislike for the 3e-style saving throws. (I quite like the idea of 4e saves!)  It would have been much simpler to have all spells as attack rolls that target different defences, rather than the wizard's player having to ask the DM for a number of rolls.

The other annoyance with spells in the playtest is that they are off in their own section. The 3e PHB made non-casters feel quite left out with the large chunk of the book devoted to spells.  It also made looking up such spells another time sink during games, especially at higher levels.  Having powers (and powers for each class) within the classes write-up means that each class gets the same level of love, of spotlight, and of options.  And having spells written in neater formats allows for easy access, such as the power cards often used in 4e. 

(-ve) Spells (specific)

I'm not going to comment on all the spells, and will instead just reference a few of the more stand-out ones.

Aid allows you to mitigate 0-24 damage from some allies. Considering that the same level Cure spell heals 8-36 hit points, and doesn't have to be gambled with (that is, you use it when it is needed, not in the hopes that it will be needed), I am not sure why it would be used.

Burning Hands is a good example of low-damage (4-16 for a daily resource) spell that has little interest as you gain levels.  It's saving grace is that it is an area (an awkward "cone"), but that will not mean much when you gain a level or two, and that much damage is being dished out regularly by the rest of the party at will.  

Divine Favour is an annoying spell because of the above issues with tracking it.  However, it is also one of the spells that shows the problem with removing the 'minor' action.  Instead of keeping the Standard / Move / Minor array, they have gone for a renamed Standard / Move, where some spells sneakily treat themselves an a semi-Minor action.  It feels messy, and I have to wonder how many new players will be caught up on this?

Fireball also has no scaling (at least, not in the 5-level playtest).  The damage is quite open to fluctuation, as it is without a base bonus (this is the case with most spells, only some of the healing and a few minor spells have static bonuses).  It will once again be the bane of a DM, who will be forced to roll multiple dice in response to the player's action. 

Magic Missile is back to one missile, with no expansion with the rising levels.  Auto damage is a plus, but it is just small enough to still require rolling, even vs a 3 HP goblin. 

Sleep is now pretty useless.  Part of me wonders if they meant to make it "3d8 hit dice", but the option of casting one of my daily spells and only putting a single goblin to sleep is beyond boring. Inflict Light Wounds has the same 3d8 mechanic, but does real damage, and half on a miss.  Sure, it's only against a single creature, but it will effect any target! (Well...not undead :) )

Stinking Cloud is similar to Fireball, dealing lightly less damage (2-20 instead of 5-30), but deals the damage every round, for ten minutes (unless dispersed).

Thunderwave is now a beefed-up version of Burning Hands.  For a slight drop in damage (2-12 over 4-16), you can push them 15 feet. 


In general, the spells seem to be all over the place; within each level, they do not feel balanced, and whilst some feel like their older daily examples, others feel little better than what encounter powers were like.  Perhaps, the weaker powers should have an "encounter" marker, and each magic user allowed to decide when preparing their spells whether they filled their slots with dailies, encounters, or a mix of each?

What spells (or equipments) do you see problems with?  Which ones do you feel are good, and should be a marker to measure the others against?

DnD Next Playtest Round #2 (p3)

First up: if you haven't already done so, sign up and download the material.  (note that even if you were part of round 1, you will have to 'sign up' again, as they changed their system).  Once you have done that, we can move on!

Part 3: The General Bits

In part 1 of my comments on round 2 of the playtest, I discussed the various other aspects in creating a character.  In part 2, I discussed the four classes presented in the playtest material, as well as the new take on themes (backgrounds and specialities). This time, I will be looking in more general terms over other aspects of play, largely following the "How to Play" document.

I have represented my general feelings to each large subject in the title: (-ve) for generally negative feelings, (+ve) for generally positive feelings, and (neutral) if the pros and cons seem to be about the same.

(-ve) Basic Rules

I have already spoken of my dislike of the single defence and rolling saves against attacks, as well as the "save  for every defence" that all are part of 5e, and thus will not dwell on them long here. In short, I feel there should be only ever one roll for an effect or attack to take place.  If the wizard makes their 'attack roll', then also having a 'save' against the spell adds in extra time, but it makes the power less likely to work, and more annoying for the player using it.  3e's Phantasmal Killer was particularly poor; the player usually had to roll a spell resistance check; then the target had to fail two saves to suffer the full effects.  (This is not advocating save-or-die, but rather, one roll maximum to get an effect across.  The effect may well worsen in time, from future saves, but in the instance of casting it, keep it to one roll!)  The other thing is that it is much easier for the attacker to do all the rolling.  They have the power, they know what it targets and what is required: if they roll one thing, and tell the DM the value, he can check it against the monster's stats.  With both parties rolling, more time is wasted confirming what is required to roll, what the DC should be, and so on.

I don't really have much of an opinion on Advantage and Disadvantage.  The mechanics (of rolling 2d20) were fun with the 4e's Avenger, or the Goliath's markings, when they were rare and kept to either once an encounter, or one class at the table.  I don't know how much the novelty will wear off after a few months, let alone years, of continuous use by everyone around the table. 

(neutral) Ability Scores

I don't think there's a lot they can do wrong here, though it is interesting that they have chosen to go back to each ability having it's niche. Strength for melee fighting (and with no jump/climb/swim skills, for those activities too), Dexterity for AC, ranged, and initiative, and so forth.  Now that your Constitution modifier is added to your hit points each level (as in 3e), a solid Constitution score is suddenly a whole lot more important.  The difference between an 11 and a 14 was only three HP in 4e, but in 5e it will be two hit points every level, a difference of 40 HP by level 20.  Wizards, in particular, are going to have to be more careful with their Constitution, leading to a whole lot of solid, tough mages!

(-ve) Exploration

Jumping now has no random element, unlike hiding oneself, or picking a pocket.  Every person with 15 strength can jump 15 feet without risk, and not an inch further.  Stealth, on the other hand, is a constant back-and-forth of d20 rolls.  (Note: the playtest states "dexterity check" and "wisdom check", but I assume this hasn't been updated to the new "stealth skill" and "spot skill").

4e brought in the fantastic mechanic of "passive" skills, the most useful one being perception.  Not only did it allow the DM to keep surprises (or the noticing of surprises) secret, by not asking for rolls when the players didn't know of the danger, but it made stealth a whole lot easier.  Roll vs their passive perception, beat it to be hidden.  One roll, no matter how many enemies there were.  But now, a rogue hiding from ten goblins requires the DM to not only roll ten checks, but record and remember which goblins passed and which failed.  It also isn't clear if someone trying to spot a hidden individual calls for another stealth check, or uses their previous result to roll against.

(-ve) Combat

I am Australian.  We use the Metric system, and though I know not everyone does, I personally preferred the use of 'squares' for distance in 4e.  It allowed me to cut out the extra step of calculating distances in my head, which I now have to do.  "20 feet" means a whole lot less to me than "4 squares".

I understand the idea of wanting to simplify battle.  I don't agree with it - I liked the complexity allowed by 4e - but I can understand the idea of wanting to cut back to a simpler round structure.  "A move and an action", however, is too simple.  The most obvious area is with the spells that say "you cast this, but you can also have an action to attack".  That is, the spell is a minor action, but worded in such a way as to confuse folk far more than  standard / move / minor action base would.

Some of the actions are also rather expensive.  "Disengage" is an extended 5ft step (3e), or shift (4e), but it costs your action.  No longer can an archer step back and attack; they now have to stand and fire, or simply retreat.  Hiding in combat, instead of being part of a move, is now an action in itself.  Using items also takes the place of an attack, though pulling out a potion or drawing your weapon are now considered 'free'.

Another simplification of the combat system is to practically remove opportunity attacks.  Ranged attackers simply have disadvantage, and magic users have a 3e-feeling Dexterity check that has a small chance of wasting their action.  Opportunity attacks are only provoked by moving, and by the way it is currently worded, only by moving out of their reach (not within their reach).  The attack is a reaction, which means only one per character per round.  The two clear problems are someone provoking to allow everyone else to run past; and someone freely moving around an enemy, but remaining within their reach.  Interestingly, this means that having a larger reach can be a disadvantage, as it allows more freedom to your enemies.

With the importance of Constitution, I predict that it will be the favoured stat, on average, across all classes.  The death save will become increasingly easy to pass, and the whole unconscious process becomes a whole lot less scary.  Though, with healing still being as insignificant as it is, maybe death saves need to be easy to pass.  (I will not go further into healing - it has been stated that they are working on this currently, so it will be changed.)

(-ve) Magic

Let me be blunt.  I don't like the Vancian system.  I didn't like how 3e magic was presented, and I don't like how they have gone back to the 3e way, after what was shown in 4e.  The inclusion of some minor at-will spells does not cover the fact that almost all a character's spells will be a daily resource, and the player will have to decide between being useful now, and calling for a 5-minute work day, or being less than effective now, and hoping the party last long enough to pull out the spells later.

 I don't like the take on Spell Disruption.  The DC's not scaling is part of the problem (an increase relative to the spell's level would have been a good start), but OA's would have worked far better, and given more incentive to simply not cast whilst threatened. 

The stated Casting Time is too long, not that it matters mechanically.  But if an entire round is 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to cast a typical spell, then how does the magic user have time for anything else?

The area of effects feel messy after the simple (if initially strange) square areas used in 4e.  Maybe they will cover this in their 'grid play module', but a square is clearly defined, and cuts out all the time wasted trying to position your sphere / cone so it maximises its targets.

I'm not going to go into each spell, but in short - I don't like how the magic system works.  There is a lack of 'average' level powers (such as the encounter powers in 4e), and the classes have gone for the all-or-nothing approach.  Alongside the lack of healing, these are the two biggest causes of the 5-minute work day, and I think, the two weakest points of 5e at the moment.

With today's (17/8/12 ...in Australia) announcement that  playtest notes for Sorcerers and Warlocks will be released shortly, I have (a little) hope that they may do something good with magic.  But there's also a whole lot of fear, based upon how they have treated Sorcerers in 4e and 3e, that this will be more disappointment.

DnD Next Playtest Round #2 (p2)

First up: if you haven't already done so, sign up and download the material.  (note that even if you were part of round 1, you will have to 'sign up' again, as they changed their system).  Once you have done that, we can move on!

Part 2: Classes

In part 1 of my comments on round 2 of the playtest, I discussed the various other aspects in creating a character.  This time, I will be looking at the four classes presented in the playtest material, as well as the new take on themes (backgrounds and specialities).  I have previously talked about how the initial version of these classes played, and will try not to cover the same ground.

I have represented my general feelings to each large subject in the title: (-ve) for generally negative feelings, (+ve) for generally positive feelings, and (neutral) if the pros and cons seem to be about the same.

(-ve) In General

Hit Points across all classes have been dropped back to 3e levels.  A single, solid hit from a greataxe could drop a cleric.  Even one who put the highest score from his starting array into Constitution, and chose it for his racial and class modifier.  Now, this is very subjective - some people may like the gritty, dangerous low levels of play.  Personally, I enjoy 4e's 'heroic' starting sturdiness of characters, and not having a character die in the first combat purely to a lucky die roll.

I am also not a fan of Vancian magic.  The At-Will / Encounter / Daily structure of  4e allowed for a trailing of Vancian with a fresh recharging nature across all classes.  It allowed people to spend lots of powers, but still have ~80% of their options available in the next encounter.  It allowed for a variation in the scale of damage and flashiness, whilst keeping those big dailies for special moments.  And it was a good step in the direction of removing the 5-minute workday.  I understand that this is also subjective, but in all groups I have been part of, the underlying truth is: Vancian magic leads to shorter adventuring days, and/or wizards who have to sit out and do nothing.

The "Spells Per Day" table does suggest that characters will go up to level 20 (gaining a new level of spells every second level, and the spell levels capping at 10).  I hope this doesn't bring in the clunky 3e-era "Epic Levels" add-on. 

(-ve) The Cleric

Here we have the poor-man's option.  Not as high HP or attack bonus as the fighter; not as many skills or extra damage as the rogue; not as many spells or as high magic attack bonus as the wizard.  With the paltry amount of healing a cleric can do, it is almost as if they were trying to sneak a bard in under a different name. It simply doesn't do anything well.

Continuing on their "refresh per day, not per encounter", the channel divinity benefit is stretched out to another daily resource.  Twice per day after level 4.  This can be a small anti-undead attack, or a bit of extra healing.  As a standard action, it feels like another kick to the cleric's already bruised ribs.

The domains lack anything really interesting.  Sun comes with an unfriendly large burst attack that will annoy your allies, and War makes the channel divinity almost reasonable.

(neutral) The Fighter

When I first read about the new "combat superiority" feature, I was quite sceptical.  Dealing extra damage was the rogue's shtick, and it felt poorly tacked on.  Plus, it sounded as if the die was yet another daily resource.  So, in reading that it actaully recharges each turn, I have to say I am a lot happier with the idea.  Not so much the extra damage aspect, but the fighting styles offer a little back.

The rules seem to suggest that the Fighting Style choice happens at level 1, and the extra  Combat Manoeuvres are added in at levels 3 and 5.  The class progression chart could be read that at levels 3 and 5, you get to choose another Fighting Style.  The former reading means that after level 1, there are really no new options for the fighter; the latter means they have a reasonable amount of choices (though still no where near that of the cleric or wizard).

The Combat Manoeuvres allow the otherwise simple and boring "hit with sword" fighter to become a little bit more engaging and adaptable, but it still pales in comparison to those with spells.  It also lacks the excitement that was the 4e fighter, who had melee basic attacks, at-wills, and then rechargeable encounter powers (as well as impressive daily manoeuvres to pull out when the going was particularly tough).  The lack of turn-by-turn options doesn't make the current Fighter class bad, but it is still a while away from good.

(-ve) The Rogue

Sneak Attack damage has sky-rocketed, beyond that of both 4e (2d6 until level 11; didn't reach 5d6 until level 21) and  3e (only 3d6 at 5th level; waited until 9th level for 5d6).  This is particularly strange when one of the big goals was for simple, quick combat - dice explosions (that is, one player rolling many, many dice for a single attack) slow the game down.  Sure, it might not take that long to count up your 10d6 power, but when you have to do that every attack, the time adds up.  Ask the other players, if you don't agree.

The other strange part about the damage is that hit points are all being lowered.  I assume that covers monsters as well, but having more sneak attack damage than your own hit dice does not make for happy scenarios if the rogue ever gets turned against the party!

Skill Mastery is an interesting choice.  No longer do rogues need to have great stats all around, so they can be watchful without being wise.  But they also can take ten, after they have rolled, which seems to be quite powerful.  I am hoping that other classes can at least take ten outside of combat, and that passive perceptions will also make a comeback. 

The Schemes are an interesting way to give the rogue many extra skills, but do seem a little over the place in terms of power.  The thief can hide if merely 1/4 of his body is covered by something (so, a 4ft tall halfling behind a 1ft tall railing).  Night Vision is useless to dwarves and elves, and has even stricter requirements than the annoying Low-Light Vision.

To offset the added benefits of an extra background, the rogue has another daily resource - Knack.  But where the Fighter's Combat Manoeuvres opened up possible optional extras to change what they did each round, the Rogue is entirely lacking in this area, and seems to be focused on "hide, stab, hide again" as its only real play option.

(-ve) The Wizard

I don't know why the Wizard's magical attack is twice as good as the Cleric's at level 4.  Aside from my suspicion that the Cleric is really a Bard, that is.  For some reason, their Spell DC is also higher, and continues to become even higher as they gain levels.  Once again, WotC is making the Wizard as the "Star Class".  Human Wizards FTW?

This was the class I spoke most about last time, and I really don't see much change - if any.  Vancian magic ties the class down, the 'at-will' spells are underwhelming compared to the at-will abilities of other classes or the 4e at-will spells, and the requirement for spell DCs (instead of rolling against defences) brings multiple opportunities for failure, and more work for the DM. 

(neutral) Backgrounds and Skills

5th edition takes 4e's "Backgrounds" and "Themes", merges them together, gives it all a stir, and separates them into "Backgrounds" (what your character was), and "Specialities" (how your character does what they do).  "Classes" is meant to cover what your character is.

Backgrounds give you some skill training, another optional starting gear set, and some trait which is not usually combat-related.  In general, the ideas here are reasonable, and fit with filling in character details.

Improving skills (+1 to one, every even level) is a call back to 3e's skill points, but at a far slower progression.  With the slow progression, they are keeping most skills around the same level (much like the intent in 4e), so that you will not have some PCs auto-passing, whilst others cannot pass.  How well it actaully works will have to be determined when we have more levels to play around with.

One thing that surprised me was that if your class and background overlap with a skill, you can choose any other skill to replace it.  This could lead to some purposefully-chosen clashes, to grab some other much wanted skill that couldn't otherwise be taken. Though, the skills themselves may not be that interesting.

Contrary to how they played earlier, each skill (a total of twenty five!!) is now tied to a single ability score.  I am someone who thought the 17 presented in 4e was a good cut-down from the 36+ in 3e.  I enjoyed the even-more-condensed Gamma World take, in which there are only ten.  Considering thirteen of the 5e skills are "Lore", the expansion might not be terribly obese, but I still feel cautious over so many skills.

The skill choices are also a little strange.  You can 'improve' your stealth (over just Dexterity), and your force of personality (intimidate / bluff / diplomacy / streetwise over just charisma).  But there is no athletic option, to jump, run or swim more than your strength.  There is no acrobatic option, to balance, dodge or jump more than your dexterity.  Why can different people excel in some areas, whilst in others, anyone with an ability of 14 is exactly the same?

(-ve) Specialities and Feats

It seems that Feats now reside totally within Specialities.  I hope this is not the case, but there do not appear to be other ways to acquire feats in the playtest material other than by choosing a speciality.  Note that this does not guarantee you each of the selected feat - you still have to meet any requirements listed for each feat.  The lack of choice in this system (if I have understood it correctly) is quickly apparent.  You take a speciality at level 1, and it governs the four feats you get up to level 9.    As it stands, that sounds really poor.  The freedom to choose feats as you wish (instead of in pre-set packages) means you can create a character as you want, not one that will look like everyone else.

Whilst the Specialities sound interesting, their only benefit is the feat they provide at set levels.  And the feat seem to need a lot of work.  Two particularly poor ones are "Rapid Shot" and "Two-Weapon Fighting", which have long been used to sacrifice a little accuracy (or just the feat costs) for the promise of extra damage.  Now, they provide two attacks, each dealing half damage.  A rapid-shot archer, or two-weapon fighting ranger have absolutely no benefit when facing a single target, and are half as effective when covering multiple targets.  If minions were not removed, I could see some use against them; that is, until the wizard comes along and shows what a real minion-killer looks like.

On the higher end of power comes 5e's version of toughness.  3e offered 3 Hit points  for the feat; 4e offered 5 HP per tier for the feat.  5e is offering an entire extra hit die, which will be at least 5 HP (but comes with additional healing properties).  With the reduction in everyone's HP across the board, this feat seems to be very powerful, offering not only a substantial percentage increase in HP, but double the starting number of personal healing (via the hit dice).

I would like to see more feat, and know if you can take feat that aren't part of the strict Speciality groupings, but with what I see here, I do not like the restrictions, or the mechanics behind them.

DnD Next Playtest Round #2 (p1)

First up: if you haven't already done so, sign up and download the material.  (note that even if you were part of round 1, you will have to 'sign up' again, as they changed their system).  Once you have done that, we can move on!

Part 1: Character Creation

Character Creation seems to be the logical place to start.  Round 1 of the playtest only had pre-gens, so this gives us an opportunity to see a bit more of the mechanics of characters.  And what do we have?

I have represented my general feelings to each large subject in the title: (-ve) for generally negative feelings, (+ve) for generally positive feelings, and (neutral) if the pros and cons seem to be about the same.

(-ve) Ability scores

They have only provided two options in the playtest material: either roll (4d6, drop one), or one single array.  That's a pretty poor start, and I hope it is purely because they are still working out their point buy system, or calculating further arrays.  I personally do not like rolling stats - it might be great in a chaotic game such as Gamma World, but even there, they gave you good starting scores for your one or two main abilities.  In other games, having such a fundamental part of your character determined purely on luck leads to one of two main results: having to reroll (and thus removing the whole purpose of rolling in the first place); or having badly unbalanced characters.  The latter can lead to players resenting other characters, or dropping out of the game altogether.

Point buy (which was brought in with 3e and altered slightly for 4e) allows more customisation than the basic array (which is worth 17 points in a 4e build). The given array has the highest score as 15.  It allowed each player to start on roughly the same ground, whilst also allowing for them to choose between a high score and many lows, or a more even approach.  I know others like the rolling method, but ultimately, Point Buy needs to be a core option; I would feel more comfortable if it (or even the array) were the default, and rolling was an add-on extra. Either way, all three should be present.

(-ve) Races

They have only given four races (Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Human) in the playtest materials.  Each has a lot of fluff, with a few mechanical changes at the end.  Sadly, they still seem to be losing the 4e idea of making race more important, and are instead having it as a passing attribute quickly forgotten.  There looks to be little to differentiate a higher level elven fighter from a higher level dwarven fighter.  Maybe the equivalent of paragon paths or higher level feats will help differentiate this...

Ability bonuses are now only +1 (to one stat), and the stat in question is determined by your subrace.  Low-light vision is still a dreadful mess and most likely useless in most adventuring situations (unless the whole party has low-light vision, or you are ok with splitting up the group). 

Another thing to note is that whilst most of the die increases (Dwarven Weapon Training & Toughness) give +1 average damage and +2 maximum damage, the d12 => 2d6 jump gives +0.5 average damage, and +0 max damage. If you compare the based on percentage increases to damage, it is even less exciting.

There is more death for the encounter powers (one of the most helpful things to stop the five-minute workday), with the halfling now having two rerolls a day, instead of one reroll an encounter.  Sure, it now applies to his rolls (kind of like Elven Accuracy in 4e), but only recharges at the end of a day.  Again - this encourages the player to use them often and early (as does a wizard with his spells, or anyone with their hit dice of healing), and then call for camp to be set up to get said powers back. The 5-minute workday was something they were claiming to work against.

Finally, the Humans.  I cannot work out if they want everyone to play them (they get +1 to every ability, and +2 to one), or only those who cannot cope with a few extra rules (they get nothing else...no bonus skills, powers or feats).  Mechanically, they outshine all other races with their abilities, but they are so incredibly boring, it is like comparing a 4e fighter to what has been offered for a fighter in 5e.

I cannot rate what they have offered for races as anything but a negative.  They lack the interest and importance of 4e, they include the painful "low-light" mechanics, and they don't feel balanced.

(-ve) Combat Numbers

Yes, I know that "Classes" should come next, but there's enough in there to talk about that I will save it for its own post.  For now, I will skip over it and talk about the rest of character creation in general.

Hit Points have lessened.  They have gone from the sturdy-heroic 4e level, and dropped back to the slain-by-a-stray-arrow 3e level.  This choice will clearly appeal to people differently, but I have much preferred the low-level 4e battles, where a critical hit didn't mean instant-death for any PC involved. 

Likewise, I disagree with Mike Mearls' idea that the way to answer "there isn't enough healing!" is to reduce hit points.  Yay, our healing does a larger percentage of our total HP, but we have less to spare, and will go down more easily.  For a level 1 character, being able to heal once a day does not "take the pressure off the cleric".  This lack of healing helps cause the 5-minute-workday.

Armour Class is pretty straight forward.  My feelings here are more linked to it being the only defence.  I want to attack enemies' fortitude reflex, or will.  Not make an attack, then have them save.  Initiative and attacks are, at least, pretty straight forward.  So that's a whole lot of neutral, with a splash of negative.

(+ve) Finishing Touches

For equipment, they have stuck with a set amount of gold (or the option of grabbing packages), instead of 3e's rolling for starting gold.  This is a good choice, as rolling could mean another level of messing around with a character for their first level.  It is simple and straightforward, and allows creation to continue smoothly. If only that was done for ability scores: the comparison works between starting gold and abilities.  Starting gold is like point buy: everyone has the same, and can choose how it is spent.  Packages are like arrays: pre-chosen values balanced with the basic starting gold / point buy.  And rolling for gold might as well be rolling for stats - it might prove most beneficial, or terribly hamper your character. 

Descriptions are a good thing to work on, though they lack any real in-depth questions (as most editions of DnD do).  Height, weight, hair colour, and name are as far as most characters will be described.  It would be good to see more probing suggestions or questions, and ideas on how to develop some real character to go along with the rest of the mechanics.  A good fleshing out of motivations and personality in the core of Character Creation would do wonders to get players thinking more about who their characters are, and not just what they can do on a round-to-round basis.

Alignments are back in the 3x3 array, after 4e's poorly thought out 'straight line' idea.  They have kept 4e's "Unaligned" position, which has become a favourite with players who don't care to think too hard.  Overall, nothing too painful, and plenty of room for a finished product to expand to fill.

(neutral) The Future: Advancement

There is nothing talking about multiclassing options here, despite all the classes looking distinctively 3e-ish.  The XP progression looks rather messy.  What would have been wrong with 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, 8,000?  Easier for all to remember, and for a DM to set up encounters around.

Over the five levels, only two feat are given: one at level 1, and another at level 3.  Level 4 has 4e's "+1 to two abilities" idea, which is a great way around the need for having "+strength" items.  But what happens at level 5? Nothing?  4e made sure that every level had something fun you gained, but there seems to be a distinct hole in the chart here.

Some ups, some downs.  Plus, they only have the first five levels.  They could be doing something good with this, or it could go places that do not work.


So there are my thoughts on character creation (minus the classes...which still has a significant bit of reading and writing coming!).  Do you agree or disagree? What are you looking forward to? What do you have concerns over?

Are we Losing Good Ideas?

I would have liked to be present for the recent DnD XP playtest and seminars, but alas, it is too far to travel from way over here in Australia!  So I waited the time out, and have since been busy reading over everything that comes out on various blogs, looking through EN World's fantastic news summary page, and listening to different podcasts discussing the small skerricks of information that have been released.  It's taken me a while to process much of this, and, to be honest, calm down from some of the more (as I see them) crazy statements or suggestions that have been made.


In my last #DnDNext article, I talked about my feelings during the previous two edition changes.  What I plan on doing today is talking in more detail about some of the changes that have happened in the rules.  Ultimately, Monte Cook has said:

...this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone.

I, personally, doubt this.  And I know I am not alone.  There are aspects about 3e that some people prefer to all editions, and because of these aspects, they still play 3e (or PF).  There are aspects of 4e that people prefer over the other editions.  And any amalgamation of these editions cannot keep all those people happy.  Jeff Greiner has said that if he saw Thac0 in the core system, he would be done.  What sort of thing would be 'non-negotiable' for you?  And how many people do you think would have the opposite idea to you?  I cannot help but think that setting out to create a "new, improved, overarching system" would have been more feasible than an "all-encompassing, everyone is happy" system.  Though, then we run into this problem...

Healing

Second edition had a lot of wasted time, waiting in town for your party to heal back up.  Even if it was one person, without a real good reason, the rest of the team would wait patiently by for them to be back up and running before continuing on.  Third edition helped fix this - a bit - but with it, brought its own problems.  Clerics were still doing nothing but repairs in combat (or were forgoing the healing to become a better fighter than the fighter), and gold was the new band-aid, in the form of the terribly cheap and not-well-thought-out "Cure Light Wounds" wands.  Buy a few of them, spend a few minutes as you monotonously rolled a bunch of d8's, and almost all the parties ills were seen to.  Fourth edition brought in surges, which helped both limit the amount of easy healing allowed, and expanded what the healing did.  Instead of spending 37 charges form a want, you can trigger 1 to 4 surges, and be at full health.  And, instead of the cleric's healing only doing 1d8+5, it now does a quarter of your HP and then some!  Finally, 4e also allowed the cleric to take part in the battle without having to run around solely devoting time to patching up the others - and it doesn't even have to be just a cleric any more!

Of course, I am mixing everything together here.  The Angry DM does a good job discussing the two different forms of healing (go read it!).  The noises coming from DnDXP seem to sound like a step back as far as healing.  In-combat, clerics are meant to be back to Vancian (more on that later), and healing sounds more complex.  On out-of-combat healing, Dave Chalker mentioned that a Paladin needed "a several week recovery time" after a run-in with stirges.  Now, I will agree that 4e lets players reset too quickly after a day of adventuring...but weeks?  That stretches things out to dangerous levels.  Either the party is in no rush, and waits around (and thus the penalty is meaningless), or they are in a rush, and leave the paladin behind (so we have to break immersion to quickly bring in paladin2, so the paladin's player has something to do).  Neither of these scenarios sounds like fun to me!  If WotC want DnD to be "more gritty" than 4e, I am sure there are other ways to do it than forcing characters to take long stints of bed rest.

Are WotC stepping backwards?  Are they leaving the 4e simplified (and more fun) healing, and retaking the "one cleric per party" minimum?  Will clerics once again have to choose between keeping their allies alive, and actually partaking in the game? I hope that when further rules are revealed, this will not be the case.

Class Complexity

From the Class Design seminar, we received some general tidbits of information.  But first, a review.

In second edition, the classes were quite separate.  Most had their own XP charts, and thus levelled up at different XP values.  There was a clear divide between the power levels of certain classes - the fighter was superior to the wizard at low levels, and could not stand against them at high levels.  Some were very complex to play; others were simple and easy.  Third edition changed some of this - a singular table was now present for all classes, and they all levelled at the same rate.  There was an effort to balance the power level of each class, so that wizards didn't quite outshine others to the same extent; but largely, they still were the be-all and end-all as you approached epic levels.  Magic users still had a lot of complexity, especially as numerous splat books brought the spellbooks out to triple or quadruple the size of a fighter's sheet. (and that was keeping spells in summary!)  So it was a relief, personally, when 4e brought both the class-to-class power level, and the complexity, to a much closer balance.  With the introduction of at-will, encounter, and daily powers for every class, a fighter was no longer "hit with sword", and a wizard no longer had to wade through 100+ spells to find that right one.  In addition, wizards could use everything they had, and still be quite effective in the next encounter; whilst fighters could have those moments of performing spectacular (and sometimes super-human) deeds.  Each class was both exciting and fun to play, and yet it was simple enough to use any of them.

The options brought in with Essentials for some classes (another rant for another time - but to summarise: just because it is an "Essential" class does not mean it is simplified...the Essentials wizard and cleric, for example, are no easier to play!) meant that players were able to take on a fighter without the complexity of so many powers.  If the player didn't mind that every round was going to be practically the same, they could sacrifice options and unique powers for constant hitting and less choice.  I was disappointed that they only did this for some classes - ranger, rogue, and fighter in particular.  Having similar options for clerics and wizards would have been great: as it is, players who wish for an 'easier' character have their choices radically limited.

So the announcement that fifth edition is going to return to different classes having different complexity levels is another disappointment.  It would be ideal if all classes had options to play a simple version or a complex version (or ones in between), and if the simple versions of each were on par, as well as the complex.

The announcement that "Vancian magic is core" comes into this, too.  It was a great relief to see 4e do away with most of the Vancian system which, whilst may make for good novel writing, does not work well in games!  Having each class based around the same at-will / encounter / daily routine meant that balancing encounters and adventuring days for the party was much easier.  Having a character that, should he use a few powers, is done for the day, grows tired pretty quickly.  Put alongside the character who can continue doing that one (boring?) action over and over again all day long, and you have a break-down in party dynamics.

Again, we don't know a lot about how these work - but all the information we have so far seems to be a giant step backwards in playability, and a loss for anyone whose "way of playing" was 4e.

One final thing on classes - they have said that there will be "3e style multiclassing".   I admit that 4e did not do a great job of multiclassing, but I still think that it was better than 3e's "dip into anything, take the best of five classes" style.  Not only was it not strict enough with the players, it was trouble to guide as a DM.  And when it came down to dipping into Prestige Classes as well... It is not a surprise that they were some very houseruled items.

Saving Throws

Second edition had a multitude of saving throws for different effects.  You had a save vs paralysis, a save vs breath weapons, and a save vs spells in general.  Third edition brought these together, and gave three: Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.  Fourth edition simplified it further, and gave you a single save (at 55%) to end effects; the Fort, Ref and Will scores were changed instead to defences, and attacks rolled against them.  In this way, someone who cast a fireball rolled to hit each target's reflex score, instead of (in 3e) someone casting fireball, and each target rolling a Reflex save to get out of the road.  Mechanically, it is the same thing, with the rolling just happening on the other end of the attack.  It makes sense, too - we don't have "armour class" saves!  And, it helps with time.  It is much easier for the wizard to roll his attacks than it is for the DM to roll the saves - sure, maybe not if that's the only thing that happens, but once a few characters are doing these area effects, the rolls are split up amongst the players, instead of all being on the DM.

And so WotC is bringing back saving throws.  Not only are they stepping back from the nice, simple, singular save, they are going past the idea of having three saves, and instead, tying a save to every single stat.  Which reminds me: in 3e, Fort was based on Constitution, Reflex was based on Dexterity, and Will based on Wisdom.  Of course, that meant that if you specialised in other stats, your saves were rather rubbish.  4e helped counter this by allowing the best of a pair of stats work towards a defence.  And now, we go back again - not only do you have more saves, not only does it look like the target is rolling them again, but since each is tied to a single stat, everyone is going to have good saves, and rather bad saves.  We are headed back again to that point where a fireball doesn't affect half the group (as they always save), and will devastate the other half (as they can never save).

Plus, what does your force of personality (Charisma) have to do with how well you can resist being scared, or be immune to another person's charms?

Ability Scores

These, too, have had some change over the years.  3e allowed us to easily calculate the bonus of a stat, with a simple and standard formula used across all six abilities.  4e thankfully didn't really change this, but did change how the stats increased, giving +1 to all each tier, and allowing additional bonuses twice per tier. In doing this, they moved away from the need of "+X Dexterity" items, which was a good thing.  Stat-boosting items were a necessity in earlier editions, and became the go-to item of choice.  Not only that, but when they were applied or removed, it caused a whole lot of recalculation to be needed.  So why they are reintroducing stat-boosting items, I do not know.

They are focusing more on stats as important, which sounds good.  Instead of skills, it seems that they will be referring players back to stats, which will make things simpler (as opposed to their choice with saves).  And allowing stats to have more influence than, say, an inherent bonus will make that "strong fighter" feel more strong.

However, WotC have mentioned races only giving a +1 bonus to a stat.  Unless they are planning on changing how bonuses are calculated (for example, "stat - 10" instead of "(stat - 10)/2", so that 17 Strength is +7), then having a +1 racial modifier seems poor.  Ineffective.  Boring.

Fourth edition did a lot to make races more important, but there was still more they could do.  I would hate to see this as another step backwards.


Magic and Mundane Items

There was some great news about magic items: they are no longer part of mathematical progression!  Whereas 3e still had the +X sword as part of the calculation to defeat monsters (both in hitting, and in bypassing DR), and 4e needed that bonus to stay on the good side of the 55% hit rate, there was a great rule in 4e that allowed for inherent bonuses.  Using this meant that the characters no longer needed to find a +X weapon to be able to maintain the desired hitting rate, and thus items could have more story elements to them.  So on this, I am most definitely happy.

I'm almost happy enough to look over the reintroduction of stat boosting items.  Almost.

Another bizarre comment that has arisen is the idea of moving from gold pieces to silver as standard.  I am not sure what the purpose of this is, nor if it will mean that everything suddenly drops / jumps in price, or if it is just a push for everyone to say "silver" instead of "gold".  The reintroduction of 3e's damage types (slashing, bludgeoning, piercing) could be good, as I missed those enemies that were vulnerable to certain weapons.

My Current Conclusion

In closing: I am concerned that WotC's stance may be a little backwards.  That is, in wanting to encompass every crowd, and cover every game, they have forgotten that many changes from edition to edition have been improvements.  Though some people still enjoy THAC0, it is easier (and more sensible) to have positive values of defences, and add things together.  My hope is that they build on what has been learnt from previous editions - and the current one - and create something better for DnD, not step backwards to mechanics gone past and left behind.

Dungeons and Dragons is Dead! Long Live Dungeons and Dragons!

So.  5th Edition is upon the horizon.  And, most of us have known (or feared) that for some time now, but at last it has been announced.  What does this mean, and how will it effect us all?


Previous Edition Changes
Well, I don't know that!  Not yet, anyhow.  Some feel excited, and seeing they are either involved in its design, or have tested out the early game, that is reassuring.  But all I know is that I'm still feeling a little annoyed.

I've been around for two edition changes now, and they were quite different experiences.  2e had slowed down, TSR had passed it on, and everyone knew that 3e was coming.  It promised new and exciting things, such as more mingling with classes, feats, and skills; as well as the removal of THAC0.  It was looked forward to, and we eagerly awaited our DM's approval to switch the campaign over to the new system.

The end of 3e, however, was different.  It didn't feel tired, it didn't feel that it needed a change.  And I personally was awaiting my order of six books to arrive when I heard the announcement.  That hurt.

I was DMing a long-term campaign in 3e, and we played it out (with a few quickening steps, to tie things up a little faster).  Still, we entered 4e about two years into it, and yet continued to feel that there was more to be done with 3e.  Now - don't get me wrong: I love 4e, and I don't want to go back to 3e (or Pathfinder).  The changes made were for the better, in my opinion, and I am all for playing what you like: I like 4e.  But there were still books I had purchased that I hadn't used...and that looks to be the case here, too.

I received a few new books for my birthday, and though I have read through *some* of them over the last few months, I have yet to use them.  I know that another couple of books (Heroes of the Feywild, for example) that I was thinking about purchasing have now been crossed off my list.  Why should I purchase any more books for 4e, if they are about to end it all?

Sure, I could go on playing...but unlike with 3e, 4e's online presence is strictly governed by WotC.  The Compendium is great, but what will WotC do when 5e is released?  The split in fans to 4e and Pathfinder resolves around the fact that the d20 system was free to use; if WotC leave the Compendium up, won't that encourage or allow folk to continue to play 4e and not move over?  Will the continued sale of DnDi make up for lost sales of 5e?  Would they even understand what a reasonable price for DnDi would be, if it comes without the current magazines?  Ending support for what we currently play is rough enough, without being forced into the next edition.  Yes, forced: they have done well with the Compendium, it is now like a drug - I can't play DnD without it! :)

But it's not only the removal of support, but the gaps where they haven't done things.  The DMG3 that never was: help for the epic tier.  The "Class Compendium" write-ups for the PHB1 classes (a finalised Wizard (Arcanist)?). So much of the new things they have introduced, but have not yet been properly used.  Those races that never received the love they should have.  Or classes (poor artificer! forgotten runepriest! ) that never gained ample care.  There is still so much left that could be done for 4e before we left it behind.

My Wishes for what's "Next"
Since this is my thoughts, what are my wishes for DnD's future?  Ultimately, I can sum it up by saying: please let us continue to use the Compendium; and please take your time!

Time is not just a delaying tactic.  Paizo spent time developing Pathfinder, and with that, things were smoothed before its release.  With extra time, the earlier books in 4e could have been a lot smoother, and less errata.  I definitely have to agree with Rolling20s, in that there has been way too much errata.  Ultimately, the problem isn't the errata, but that the system was needing such changes in the first place.  Sure, patches to computer games may happen more frequently, but until WotC either moves totally to electronic media, or hands out free pdf's (which they update with the changes) of books along with purchased hard copies, the errata needs to be less.

Books shouldn't be delegated to the shelf, and forgotten, after five rounds of changes and updates have made them more wrong than right!  The first books should be the core, and they should be great - able to stand for the rest of the life of the edition, not replaced with 'essentials' as a new start!  Even if they released things in tiers (PHB1 being Heroic, for example), this would allow for the released game to be balanced and not needing updates; future PHBs could then bring in higher level games, which have had more time to balance / playtest. 


The second point ties in to Rolling20s first point.  The Compendium is great, but it doesn't cover everything.  It makes a DM's life so much easier, and I am scared as to what finishing my 4e games would be like, if I didn't have access to it.  So I definitely want to have that!  (Maybe a final year's payment for a downloadable version of the compendium / character builder?  It won't need any more updates, so it shouldn't take any further work?)  [update] WotC has tweeted about the tools remaining online.  (note "plan to", not "will")  I wonder what the cost is... they cannot expect full price for tools that will no longer gain new content (through books released or Dragon / Dungeon magazines).

From my time DMing on DnD Online Games, I have found the ease and speed of looking up any power, any feat, any item in seconds to be such an amazing tool.  The same task in 3e would take forever, as I had to reference different physical books, search for where I thought a spell or feat was, and often give up looking and wait for someone to point me there (which, when you are playing by post, can be a while!). I'd definitely want the same online tools for 5e, but moreso, there needs to be more openness with it.

The tight, strict levels of copyright really hurt when playing 4e online, whilst the 3e folks join games without paying anything, and test the water out.  WotC: if you want the curious to give your game a go, allow low level things to be free!  The initial character builder, which allowed anyone to build a character up to level 3, was a great idea (and the current one should do something similar).  Freely accessing some rules (stripped down is fine, as long as it gets people into the game) is necessary to keep bringing in new players, and keep the hobby alive.


Now, they are my two main thoughts, my overall wishes for "what is next".  As things come more sharply into focus, I will hopefully able to work out just where things stand, and how roughly WotC is planning on treating us...