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?

DnD Next Playtest Round #1

I've been silent a while. Partially, this is due to not wanting to rant or rave about the 5e news before there's enough out there to build a solid opinion on. Partially, I have heard had very little to like, and didn't want to come across as too negative. And partly, Real Life has been kicking me around rather roughly. But now that some of that has changed, here are my initial views on what has been offered for DnD Next! If you haven't already done so, I strongly encourage everyone to head over and join the playtest. Plus, look out for other blogs about the playtest - what follows is simply my opinion, and clearly cannot cover every player's reaction! Also note that these responses were written for the WotC survey on the playtest, and are thus written specifically for WotC to read, in response to their questions, and edited to be quite brief (as there was a word limit to responses). I have not (and will most likely continue to not) re-written them, so simply present them as-is. As such, if you haven't read the playtest material, you might be left a little confused! Feel free to ask for clarifications, if you want.

General Comments

Short rests did not provide enough healing. At level 1, with only one HD available, the wizard and cleric needed to rest whilst the fighter wasn't injured; after that, the wounded ones didn't want to go back in, whilst the fighter was ready to continue.

It was hard to change information into grids. (25ft, 20ft radius, etc). People use the metric system now, and for games, squares are much more useful..

Whilst the starting HP was good, the healing was not. One short rest each, with minimal healing (wizard gets d4+2 once a day, and only if they use a kit?) makes the short rest practically useless, and greatly increases the 5-minute workday. It feels like the heroes are meant to be tough like 4e, but after that first fight, are weaker than 3e.

As a DM

Simple things such as monster initiative wasn't included in the book. The module was written with a "do whatever you want" feel, which left myself and the players very clueless as to what exactly they should be doing.

Having only one map, at the end of the book, was also hard. Constant flicking between the main map and the locations was hard, as was working out where creatures were (eg 22 + 6 goblins in one room!). The scale of the map was also overlooked by us until after the first session, so we had way too little space to play on.

Trying to find out rulings on simple things (what effect does 'shadowy light' have? can you flank? what is a coup de grace? and other things we know from previous editions) was hard, and there was always the fear of choosing something unfair / contrary to the rules. Am I not finding something, or has it not been added in yet? If characters are told they treat darkness as shadowy light, where is the information as to what shadowy light is?

I found nothing on passive skills, so are we to expect everyone is not searching unless they specifically call for it? I do not want to have to call for search checks again, that would be yet another step backwards from 4e.

The monsters were also both too simple (in the adventure book), and too complex (bestiary, when it makes you refer to other locations for spells! I already have the module open to the map, to the encounter area, then i have the bestiary open to the monster, and now also the rule book to the spell??) 4e had this right with their module format: two page spread, everything you needed (map, text, rules, monsters). This is what all modules should have. For sure, have further bits about NPCs, story, etc, but when you write an encounter, keep it all in the one spot. Everything revolving around the encounter, right there for you.

As a Player

There was little feel and no real options with my character (dwarf fighter). Having played many fighters in 4e, where they were both interesting and involved, moving to this fighter was worse than stepping back to 3e. You can make an array of fighters in 4e that have different feels to them, different and varied options available, and all can refrain from becoming boring; this guy had nothing. Move, hit, move hit, move, hit. Only healing once a day (for d12+2, so 8 HP on average) is not enough. 8 HP is not even half his total HP, so if he gets beaten down in one encounter, he is out for the rest of the day? That is not heroic at all. Sure, have the HD as a bonus to healing, but allow more healing, more often!

Our group initially mistook the rules to be "HD + Con Score", and thought that was low...when we realised it was Con Modifier, we were horrified.

Plus, our group had no healing kits, so after our first scuffle with goblins, we had to take all the spears (60+ of them) back to "civilisation", sell them, and grab ourselves a healers kit. The kits should aid in short rests, not be required for them!

Ultimately, if a short rest has not healed the characters close to full HP, there is little chance they want to go on. Sure, limit the number of rests per day, but 4e had it right - after a rest, they should be pretty much back on their toes.

I was also confused as to where his damage came from: 2d6+7. +3 str, +2 weapon focus, +2?

It was also unclear if the weapon focus applied to the reaper feature, and what use exactly their low-light vision was (only works if there's no light around? Does a torch count? Does the sun count? Does a fire count? What if any of those things only gives shadowy light (poor torch, cloud cover, embers of a fire)? If you are going to give races abilities, make sure they are easily noted and understandable.

Classes

The cleric
Healing was too little (D6??). If you rolled a 1, you might as well not helped out at all. Also - healing when the target is unconscious, does it merely reduce the negative HP, or revive them immediately?

Whilst using the 3e sorcerer style of spells was better than what was done for the wizard, it would still have been better to have some encounter powers (such as the pathetic d6 healing), so they could have more options each encounter.


The fighter
The fighter was boring. After the great, exciting things we have played in 4e, going back to a simple "move, hit, repeat" format was not enjoyable. There was not even any option in the one, single power he had.

Fighter's surge is pretty much a poor attempt at action points; they were much more enjoyable in 4e, where everyone had them. We hourse-ruled them to an encounter resource (easier book-keeping) , and never looked back.

The wizard
Not having the spells before you was a real pain. Having a character sheet that was already twice as involved as the fighter, *before* spells were added, was also not good. Again, 4e had this right, where spells / attacks were equal across classes, and one player didn't have to wade through multiple books whilst others could write everything on a business card.

Having your powers as mostly daily powers was not good, either. Vancian magic really should stay in Vancian novels. At the most, have a few, rare daily powers, but leave enough encounter powers to keep options alive, instead of the “oh well, spells spent, I’m out for the day now". Magic Missile does not help; it’s as bad as the 2e "wizard's crossbow”.

Spell descriptions had too much fluff. Once you read someone's interpretation of the burning hands spell, do you really ever want to read it again? It’s ok to have that fluff, but when it is in the body of the spells, it takes up space; the cards for 4e worked well. Everything mechanical you needed to know to cast the spell, whilst the fluff stuff was easily accessible if you wanted it. But don't have them in a separate location-it takes too much time looking up spells!
Plus, the radius/cone things really are not good. Using grids (which I have done since 2e) means that "20ft radius“ is harder to calculate, harder to adjudicate, harder to place "Burst2" is simple, there are no arguments, & it is quick.

Saving throws are also bad From the DM's side (having to look up creatures stats in yet another book, then roll them all), it adds more time to the one person who has the least time From the player's side, why not roll to hit each creature, as everyone else does? The fighter gets to roll his dice to attack, why can't the wizard roll to see how accurate his spell is?

The races

The races didn't seem interesting, and there was no easily discoverable information as to the real effect of low-light vision. Maybe, had we seen the racial mechanics, there might be more feedback on them, but as it was, they seemed simple and boring. 4e racial powers let you know different races were interesting.

Overall Comments

This game felt like a giant leap backwards. 3rd edition brought with it many improvements on 2e (classes made more even, skills and feats, options available to classes, stats made even). but 4e made many improvements to 3e (classes made more balanced in game, as well as at the meta-table level, fighter and wizard both being interesting options, rolls made by the attacker limited excess DM work, characters healed in battle and out, clerics could do things aside from heal, and still heal, saves were simple d20 rolls, distance was in squares, monsters stat blocks were elegant and simple, and didn't force the DM to look elsewhere, every player could play without referencing books, just their character sheets/cards).

This feels like a step back to 3e, with overflow into 2e. Honestly, if this was the option right now, I would have no issue sticking with 4e. And though I don't want to play 3e any more, if 4e wasn't an option I would choose Pathfinder. It's free, open, and better than the playtest we have now.

Whilst some areas are overly simplified (which we expect), the sheer number of rolls (eg d6sp+d10cp per goblin) and equipment/spells makes it feel too simulationalist. If you want a simple system, go for that - but cut out rolling silver & copper pieces in treasure!

Overall Questions

Why were spells put back into the game in such a 3e way? Getting them out from the "spell section" of the book was a great thing 4e did, and made non-spellcasters feel better (since they didn't access that chapter). Having monsters with daily spells (when they will only last an encounter) is also painful - forcing the DM to look them up, moreso. For the next playtest, it would be a great improvement if every single class had two, and only two pages of information. Print those pages out, and that is absolutely everything they are required to use for the session.

Likewise, why make so much more work for the DM? Give him the module, and that should contain everything. No flipping through the bestiary for further info before the encounter even starts (eg initiative), or flipping through a third book for spells! Help him out by having everything there for him from the get go.

Why do fighters have to be so boring, and wizards so complicated?

Why have we gone back to feet? Is DnD not a worldwide game? Use squares, and make it simpler for everyone.

How do you get advantage / disadvantage? Give a list of common causes for both, and let the DM add to it; don't make the DM decide all of them.

Heroica: First Steps towards Roleplay

I recently purchased the smaller of the Heroica sets, Draida Bay.  Whilst I do enjoy collecting LEGO (Star Wars specifically), the reason I purchased this set was to introduce Ali, my daughter, to games.  That is, actual board games, with rules and dice! (and not just snakes and ladders)

Heroica Mechanics

The Heroica game is simple enough - roll a special LEGO die, move your micro-fig that many squares, and if you land adjacent to a monster, you roll again.  The die's sides show numbers (in pips) and either a sword, skull, or both.  These refer to you defeating the monster, or taking damage yourself.  Being a kids game, there is no chance of losing - should you run out of hit points, you simply miss a few rounds, whilst rolling the die and regaining hit points until you reach the maximum amount, and continue your quest.

The monsters (goblins, in this set) do not move or act aside from the result of the hero's roll; they simply stand and wait to be confronted.  This means the game is played cooperatively against the static environment. You could play to race to the end, but so far in our gaming, my daughter seems to be just happy to defeat the goblin general.

Playing the Game

Our first play-through naturally involved building the map itself, and this was something Ali most definitely enjoyed.  Being only three, the instructions were a bit beyond her (not surprisingly, since it is recommended for ages 7+), but with my guidance and help, she managed to get most of the game set up.  She has her own blocks (Duplo, Mega Blocks, and Kid K'NEX), and is always eager to play with, or help build, other more advanced sets, so this was not her time with regular LEGO blocks.

Understanding the rules was a little more of a hindrance.  Being young, she was thrilled with rolling the die (which, with its rubber frame, bounces away all too easily!); even using the recommended lid as a rolling tray didn't stop the die escaping from the table on numerous occasions.  Counting the pips was easy enough, though Ali often struggled with translating the count to the squares moved.  More often than not, her piece was simply moved to a random square.

The "capture" of the goblin microfigs became a fun experience, and they quickly lost any fearful attitude they might have had, and were refined to another treasure to be collected.  Interestingly, the one treasure in the game (a healing potion) was not allowed to be moved.  Ali refused to take it, if she was allowed; and I was told to put it back, if I ever dared remove it.

Losing a combat was also a favourite: Ali still exclaims loudly "ow!" whenever she rolls a skull, and takes great care removing her hit point marker.  For some reason, they always have to be stored in the same location (the corner of the general's square), and if they are ever left lying around on the table, I am quickly told "no, daddy, put them here!"

Roleplaying?

Aside from the cries of mock pain as she rolls the skulls, there is little story that goes along with the game.  The die is the main draw, and the LEGO pieces a close second.  But that's not necessarily a bad thing - even a good old Mr Men story is often beyond Ali's attention span or understanding.  Still, as a starting point, I think it is valid.  Eventually, when she is learning more about addition, and can handle more game mechanics, games in DnD's "Adventure System" (Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon, and the like) will be adequate.  (At the moment, she enjoys the miniatures, but wouldn't follow the game or the rolls...or be able to read the d20).

Slowly, stories could be made about the adventurers.  After all, Ali already makes stories with her dolls (which include pirates invading the princess' dollhouse); stretching them to the adventuring Barbarian and Wizard shouldn't be too much of a stretch. So, I see potential for stories to develop and be able to be played out, and will be testing the water as Ali grows.

Aftermath

The game is a success - Ali often wants to play "the dice game", and is eager to proceed if I suggest a second run.  She still does not understand the finer points of the game - each character has a 'special attack', but as they are still referred to as "the yellow one" and "the red one", those finer points can wait.  Exactly what happens to the goblins when they are captured is not clear - they seem to be more trophies to be won, as opposed to any actual killing being done (and I am ok with that! She already likes shooting with non-gun things too much).  And, the counting of positions is still a little rough.  Counting dots is one thing - they are there, and have a definite number.  Counting out how many places she is to move proves to be a little more difficult - often she will find herself ahead one or two squares.  The miscounting doesn't matter in our games, but continued play could help her develop her counting skills...at least, to four.

Since the sets are relatively cheap, and are clearly fun and enjoyable, I will look into getting further ones over time, and add them to the current set as she grows in understanding and ability.  I still don't know if they will be as fun when Ali is seven, but for now they are a quite worthwhile hobby.

My Roleplaying Game Journey (An Overview)

Today, I am looking back (briefly) at the various games and groups I have enjoyed over the years.  This article serves to give a little more background as to where I come from (in relation to RPGs), and what my experiences have been.  I'm not going to dwell on anything too much, just paint a general picture, so feel free to browse over it, and if you really want to know more, ask!


The Primary School Era

I have been playing RPGs since early in primary school.  At a guess, that was around ten years of age, and I cannot remember what the game we played actually was.  It could have been some old edition of DnD, as I recall there was a map at one stage; but it most likely wasn't.  We played at lunch times, and I definitely recall some of the game being out of a novel-like book.  It could even have been some from of Choose-Your_Own-Adventure book, if such things have been made to allow for parties to participate?  Or maybe, the boy that DMed those games had combined elements from multiple sources?  All I can remember is that we enjoyed it, and had much fun hiding in the library, or in the shade of the buildings, whilst other kids ran around in the sun for some strange reason.

Some time in my 12th year (of life, not school), I was introduced to the first RPG that actually used miniatures.  Hero Quest. That was a whole new world of fun, and I was drawn in immediately...and then school ended, my family relocated 800km away, and I started high-school.  Naturally, I convinced my parents of the importance of acquiring this game, and played it with my younger brother, but the "gaming group" was gone, and had to be rebuilt, or found.  Plus, with the predetermined board, there was less design allowed, and whilst running the monsters was enjoyable, it was not truly "DMing".


The High School Era

As I started High School, my interest with painting miniatures also started.  I still have those awkwardly-painted first batch of creatures from Hero Quest.  Gradually, my taste in games grew, as a hunger for more complexity and more options was developed.  I discovered Games Workshop, and through them, lost much time and money to many different pursuits.  Warhammer Fantasy (Skaven); Warhamemr 40,000 (Eldar), and Necromunda (Orlocks, then Spyre Hunters) all captured my attention at various times.  A common theme was had with these 'teams' I chose: fast, strong offensive, weak defensive.  (Well, the Spyres might not have been that weak, but they were few in number, and that is a form of weakness, right?)  The painting habit improved over time, and continued well into the "So On" era (complete with GW's Lord of the Rings line), up until my role as a father started taking over my free time.

Whilst these skirmish-style games were great, and we all had a whole lot of fun with them, it was Warhammer Quest that truly awoke my inner DM.  Through the latter part of my high school years, we formed a proper gaming group - which was pretty much just the same circle of friends I hung out with elsewhere - and adventured through many stories, and with many different characters.  We even dressed up...once.  Only once.

When we split up and headed for University, we always imagined coming back and continuing the games we had once again, but it never happened.  Now, fifteen years later, the closest we have come is a few games of Castle Ravenloft one Christmas.  And that's not to say it was a bad experience - but trying to organise much more than that has proven to be impossible.

The University Era


When I left home to head to University, money became a lot more scarce (strangely!), and the groups I could have joined, through various clubs, were a significant travelling time away from my home.  Oh, and I was an engineer student, so I did not have much free time!

Eventually, I did meet some people who had a long-running DnD group, and was invited to join.  The full history of that group would be better told on another blog, but it, with a few changes, is still continuing this day, about 12 or so years later.

Meanwhile, I also discovered online forums, Play-by-Post games (which I will talk about more later), and RPGs on the computer (the Baldur's Gate series, and then Neverwinter Nights).  These filled in that need to game, without having to actaully find a time that would work with everyone.  Yes, each of them lacked aspects that a good, regular gaming group had, but they had benefits, too.  A computer game clearly only needs you to be free; likewise, you can write up a post in your own time, and not have to wait on others arriving.  But still, these things were only ever a fill-in, for when the actual group wasn't meeting.

And So On...

My current, long-term group has played through the end of second edition; excitedly entered third (then reluctantly purchased 3.5); took a detour through Star Wars; returned to see out a heavily house-ruled 3.5e campaign whilst trying out 4e on the side; and now are sailing on with some dusty adventures with a full-fledged 4e game (more on which can be seen on the aforementioned blog).

Whilst that has happened, the side group was formed.  It was made up from a few eager players wanting to play more than once a month, and a few other interested folk who had not played for a while, or at all.  This group started out as an attempt to move through the levels, sampling what 4e had to offer, before making a decision as to if we would join it or not.  Of course, being a monthly game, it took a year to get through the heroic tier.  Then we slowed down, and took nearly two more years to get through the paragon tier.

New babies, extra commitments, and one individual looking at returning to England meant that as we planned to start the epic tier, the group was a whole lot smaller.  In fact, it was getting hard to have enough people for a game, so we planned on merely sampling a few levels over the expanse of the epic tier, and then seeing where we were (and who was left) before deciding on our path ahead.

A third group was formed at work - what started off as various board games (Settlers of Catan being an early favourite) turned into a DnD 4e game.  Playing almost every day at lunch, we were able to get through games a lot faster, even managing to complete an encounter a day in the epic tier!  Sure, there were a few special battles that had us run over to a second lunchtime, but those were few and far between. 

It is interesting to note the different levels of roleplaying that happen in each game.  Lunchtimes at work are very focused and encounter driven; the monthly games are more relaxed and have room for more social encounters; and the continuing Play-by-Post games allow for in-depth discussion and mid-round flashbacks.  They are all enjoyable in their own way, and I will hopefully be able to continue on with each of them for some time yet!

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.