Well the first iteration of the D&D Next Playtest is out.

Do you like what you see so far? Are you filled with dread? Do you want to try it a bit more before forming your opinion?

This poll will run for 31 days, and folks can change their votes until it is over, so if actual play differs from expectations you can change your mind. (Hopefully for the better.)

The Auld Grump, oh, and Breeyark!

So far it is a strong neutral in the poll - one positive-neutral, one neutral, and one negative-neutral. Along with one 'don't know/don't care'.

Actually an improvement over the previous poll, now that folks have something to chew on.

The Auld Grump

Kane has mentioned a rumor that Char Gen will be available next month. If true then thumbs up! That will remove my 'only a demo' gripe.

Also, Background and Theme are worth discussing - opinions?

The Auld Grump

Agree. I really like the idea of Background and Theme. Background gives your character something to have done before becoming an adventurer and shaping what they can do that the other characters can't. Once again, hard to judge without character gen, but sounds similar to what was in the Warhammer RPG. Theme seems a bit like Prestige Classes, but from the beginning. Gives you a chance to start customizing your character from the very beginning but also gives new players a way to jump in and build a character without being defeated by an insanely long Feat list since it seems to determine what Feats you get. This could also be bad if their is no other way to get Feats, because you would be stuck with whatever Feats are tied to the Theme.

I haven't had a chance to delve into the playtest materials yet and likely won't get a chance to discuss them with my group for a couple/few weeks.

I will be looking them over in further detail in the meantime. I am still just on the positive side of neutral (where I have been since the beginning of this whole ordeal), but again, I have only spent about 10-15 minutes with the material so far.

Since I haven't played D&D since the Red box, then sidestepped to the small box, then to the original AD&D, there's some trepidation, but I've just signed up so i can take a look...

I won't vote until I've had a chance to see what they're doing with character creation, progression and skills, as that is what distinguishes, in my mind anyway, an RPG system from a skirmish system. Any vote I cast before then would be based more on my doubts about 5e than what they're actually doing.

So far, what I've heard does not fill me with hope. Yes, it sounds like it will be an improvement on 4e, but on its own that is no compliment. However, just changing to the new system will require investments from people that (in my mind anyway) would be more productively spent enhancing the 3.5/Pathfinder market. On top of this, it introduces yet another split in a market already suffering from excessive fragmentation (tabletop RPG'ing requires people working off the same system, fragmentation inherently dilutes the market).

If I was to vote now it would be for the 'Pretty Bad' option - a little strongly worded that one, but a closer fit that 'Negative Neutral' for me right now.

There's just not enough info to make any sort of informed decision... so I voted neutral.

Well... with the little given in the playtest materials I'm positive/neutral so far. They pregen'ed the characters, so you can't see how much freedom there is for character creation.
I don't like the adventure, but that's a matter of personal taste, not a scathing indictment of 5e...

Since I haven't played any RPG in almost a decade (and that was Cthulhu Live - pen and paper I stopped doing in the early 90s...), I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of a noob.

Heh, the scenario is taken from an old D&D adventure titled Keep on the Borderlands.

A lot of folks have fond memories of that adventure. Even me.

One of my favorite touches in the 3e DMG was the example of play and adventure were the same ones as in the original AD&D DMG.

So a call back is a good thing.

The Auld Grump

Ah, I see the problem - I started playing D&D in 1976, and AD&D by 1978-9, and spent fall of 79/first half of 1980 prepping for boot camp, going through boot camp, and starting tech school. By the time I was gaming again it was surpassed by other modules... and we were looking at integrating Arduin and Judges Guild material rather than stepping back to Basic D&D.

Negative neutral.

The only thing worth of interest is the advantage/disandvantage mechanic, and even that is pretty bland.
The worst thing is, nothing seen in the first playtest (for which I've signed up, even after 4e) has piqued my interest. There's stuff seen before, stuff seen in house rules, stuff seen in other RPGs. Nothing new, nothing good, nothing bad, nothing imaginative. The un-interesting edition.

Well, I read through the "How to Play" document and have skimmed each of the characters.

Likes: (I reserve the right to change my mind later on these, but they are positives for now)
-Advantage/Disadvantage
-Hit Dice/Short Rest mechanic using healer's kits: this seems like a nice compromise between no healing for noncasters and 4e surges
-Simplicity: it seems very simple in terms of combat. That is said with no actual combat experience and only perception for a once-over reading.
-Backgrounds and Themes: themes seem like 4e themes, but backgrounds seem more fleshed out. I am a fan for sure.
-Skills being taken out. I have moved to a minimalist mindset and so this is one that I am actually hopeful for.
-Minor Spells being at-will
-Healing starts from 0 and not negative. This is something I like that they kept from 4e.
-Half Dex mod bonus for medium armors.
-Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing weapon types are back

Uncertain of:
-Character creation options, but that is because I haven't seen them yet.
-Scaling of the various numbers. This is another thing that will hopefully be answered with character creation rules. (like armor bonuses being so high, but not adding the +10 that is typical of 3.x and 4e and how not wearing armor works -- also, damage numbers seem high in some things for first level so I am curious how it scales)
-Haven't seen anything on diagonal movement yet. This is one thing I love about 4e and hope I at least have the option to rule as such without changing too much.
-Electrum is back. Seems needless.
-Spells with options to be prepared using high level slots for bonuses. I will probably enjoy this, but I couldn't find any examples.

No Opinion on:
-Saving Throws are back: this saved some combat time at my table with them being gone, but it made it feel less player-focused and took away their chance at luck.
-Ability modifiers are the same, but scores and modifiers are used more directly due to a basically nonexistent skill system.
-Combat doesn't have to be on a grid. You could get away with no terrain, but that would bode well with my terrain collection...
-Intoxicated is a condition. It did make me laugh.

I will try and post more once I read through more documents and look over the character in further depth. Right now, I feel like the things I am uneasy on fit the "lacking information" category. If the release that info over time, I will be okay. Overall, I feel more positive than I did a week ago...and I was just on the positive side of neutral then.

This all comes from a guy that play 4e due to simplicity and has grown to want even more simplicity. I need a game that is easy to learn and even easier to play...otherwise, why not just play awesome board games?

Reading through the rules is interesting.

The advantage/disadvantage rule I think will be abused by DMs, I don't like it from a Player's point of view. This does make a lot of rules simpler though.

They got rid of confirming criticals, which I don't agree with.

They re-introduced saves, which I was happy were gone.

Attacking Hidden/Invisible targets seems slightly unclear to me (other than disadvantage).

Resistance and Vulnerability being flat rated, I don't like, I prefer the DR approach.

The @ dead score is interesting, but I think might be problematic with monsters that do large damage. I like the stabilizing rule.

"Mundane" healing seems pretty crazy on/off.

I do not believe that Invisible creatures should cast a shadow.

Magic Missile is a cantrip... (so is shocking grasp and ray of frost)

It looks like a very simple rule set, but still looks like D&D to me at this point. Have not played.

I don't get why people keep saying that saves were removed. When? In 4th, they still had Reflex, Fortitude and Will. Slightly different, but same effect.

Sorry, maybe it's just the terminology.

WotC changed saves to target scores and work like AC, where the attacker "targets their score" instead of people making a saving throw.

Hence "removing saves".

Which I liked, I don't like making saving throws.

I suppose it is slightly different. Saving throws put the power in the players hands more than just being a target number. Different style of play. I could go either way.