D&D Next

[Laddy]

Well, 4th Edition was a failed experiment, so I'm excited about this. There's some info out there and I've heard good things about the game from testers. From what I read, I'm cautiously optimistic with the more I jear.

So let's talk about D&D Next and/or D&D in general.

[Flying Mullet]

Can I get drunk?

[NeoCracker]

There next edition had a rather open Beta Test, and to be honest I don't like it all that much.

It might have gotten better after the initial test, as they didn't give you much to work with, but unimpressed was I.

If you liked 3rd edition however ,check out Pathfinder. It fixed a lot of 3rd edition's problems, the classes are re-balanced, the system on a whole runs smoother, and there are a lot more customization options.

[Laddy]

Pathfinder is pretty much all I play now.

[NeoCracker]

I love all the crazy shit me and my friend have made.

For example, we made Edge from WWE. If you use traits and strat with the rich parents one, you can begin the game with an Adamantine Folding Chair that can seriously mess people up. XD

[Bolivar]

I've heard that D&D Next is going to go along with the same philosophy as the online D&D client, that it's going to be really malleable to any rules you want to play with, even if it's older editions. Wizards has been talking about uniting the player base, instead of continuously dividing them with editions, and every time they talk about that they get a standing ovation. I think that's a really great thing.

Of course, that probably has to do with them reprinting 3.5E books last month and selling them for an MSRP of $50 a pop (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/02420000).

I don't know if I would say 4E was a failed experiment. Giving every class a million abilities was dumb, but I had a lot of fun playing it at the few sessions I had. D&D is something I really want to get back into, and if D&D next lives up to that marketing strategy I mentioned, it'll give me some use for my old 3.0 books!

[Laddy]

D&D is like sex and pizza, even when it's bad it's pretty good. Still, my problem with 4E is it's too combat-oriented and too hack n' slashy. I pretty much exclusively play Bards, Wizards, Sorcerors, or Rogues, so I enjoy finding solutions to things through creativity and playing a defined role in my group. But when you've got a million ways to kill something it destroys a lot of the out-of-the-box thinking and role-playing.

EDIT: I [really don't] need to explain why I don't like 4E. In 4E, my role could easily be filled by someone else. One of the best parts of D&D is assembling your group and using teamwork and each character's special abilities to find solutions to problems. Oh, you've got an unlimited amount of special attacks! You've got about 30 classes! You've got a ridiculous amount of feats! You've got an incredibly over-powered daily attack! By making my repertoire

I have fond memories of my bitchy debutante elf wizard utilizing the environment and using her 18 Charisma to find alternate ways to solve problems. It made me feel smart; it made me really feel proud of the way I played my character and she remains my favorite character I've ever played. In 4E, I just shoot spells every round. I had no need to take risks or find other solutions. I didn't have to save my spells. I didn't have use my good looks. I always had a spell to use, so that killed any creativity. It just made me not like playing her as much anymore and I felt like there was little separating her from other elf wizards. So yeah, 4E is just too dumbed-down.

On another note: are any EoFFers up for a quick game?

[Bolivar]

I totally agree, the at-will powers were part of what I was getting at, particularly how it always lets casters have a spell and always lets physical attackers have a special move. I always imagined it must have been terrifying for our DM to keep track of all of our powers rather than just having basic attacks. For the short time I DM'ed, we were putting our rolls through a PC client on hand, so I just took everybody at their word at what they were rolling.

So I guess you used skill/ability checks and your wits in combat situations? Because 4E still supported all that stuff for skill challenges and such, although the D&D Encounters I played didn't have a lot of it (understandably since people are there to roll some dice, kill some monsters, and grab some loot).

If you wanna get an EoFF game together MapTools (http://www.rptools.net/) is a great way to do it.

[Laddy]

Don't get me wrong, 4E had skill-based solutions to issues, but an at-will power was pretty much always more practical. In short, creativity was unintentionally discouraged.

If people are up for it, I'd love for us to do an EoFF D&D game.

[NeoCracker]

If it's a Pathfinder or 3.5 game, I'm down. :p

[Laddy]

Sweet. I was gonna do one of those.

[Araciel]

roll20.net is good if you don't care what your mini looks like

D&D next- everything I've seen so far is good. The philosophy is to get back to the game people remember and love but still learning from what works and doesn't.

The system is awesome at the moment cause it's system-lite but still has enough of the good parts of 3.0-pathfinder-4.0, advantage/disadvantage is a cool idea (more dice with no extra math=awesome)

The whole fighter expertise dice I like, but it seems to make other classes just pure gimp in combat (though I haven't seen it in action)

lastly the charisma save makes me cry laughing, but I like ability checks with no skills, skills are just specialized ability checks...

so i'm a fan but I could play pathfinder til I die with the books I have and be happy.

EDIT -- The approach toward magic items now is EXACTLY how I try to run it...and that's awesome.