That time again - looks like this time WotC put some meat on the bones of the playtest.

A few changes - because it is early days for the package, votes can be changed. And because the practical matter is if people are likely to switch, I have added a few options for comparisons.

I'm not going to vote quite yet - my brain is filled with Pathfinder and Pagans, so I will wait until I get back from the retreat.

The Auld Grump

I like the Backgrounds and Specialties in theory. We shall see how they play out...

I am holding my opinion back until I get a chance to delve deeper. Maybe after a game of Zombicide this weekend my group will go for the playtest.

Hmmm, no votes so far - looks like everyone is taking a 'wait and see' approach, this time around.

A lot more to dig into, this time, so I guess that is reasonable.

The Auld Grump, just huntin' Spammers right now, but time fer bed....

Just skimmed it, but I liked what I've seen from new stuff to changes from previous playtest. So my vote went from Negative Neutral to Positive Neutral (more on this later), which is quite a feat, given the bad memories from 4e. If WotC had released this document as the first playtest, instead of that... half assed thing, feelings would have been better from the start.

The backgrounds and specialties parts have the spotlight, to me. Nice elements both of them, nothing completely new or never seen in another game, but good thing nonetheless.
Also, a couple of elements from the class progressions have my seal of approval, like the fighter's combat superiority and style parts (again nothing new, but pleasant to see).

The new stat bloc format for monster and creatures looks really nice, but I need more time to analyze properly.

Some thing left me wondering: the new armor table/structure has something off. Can't quite point my finger where, but the gut feeling says something's fishy in it.
The encounter building rules are pretty much on the same boat. Experience with the d20 game whispers in my ear that it needs a way better explanation, with a large paragraph about action economy.
Each weapon/attack has a really pleasant description of the type of damage it inflicts (bludgeoning, slashing, piercing) and associated reach - which is OK given the return of opportunity attacks - but we still have just AC and no explixit/obvious rule pertaining to armor types against damage types. I can only hope.

Some things are still meh. AC as a catch-it all value; same goes for HPs. Skills/feats seem to be hardcoded into backgrounds/specialties, as I couldn't figure out the final paragraph in the Character Creation document (where are the feats to choose at first level? are there any? what's the meaning of skill training? do you improve one of the skills you already have or do you get a new one?).
The whole "bounded accuracy" argument is extremely suspicious to me. Extremely suspicious. OK, I positively think it's bovine dung.

Conclusions: this looks like a good game, with its own perks (and possible flaws). This one should have been the first playtest document released, but oh well. D&D Next (uuuuuuurrghh... change it ASAP) seems to shape up as a game less intricated than 3.X, way more rich in options than AD&D 1°/2° ed., less theoretical than 4E. If it follows this path, I'll probably be interested in buying it/playing it - but only the basic manuals.
Why? Because it won't become my favorite tabletop RPG. By a long shot. Other systems are already doing the same stuff with better results. Simple game? DragonAGE. Flexible system? A Game of Thrones - SIFRPG. Detailed and flexible game? Fantasycraft. VERY detailed game? Pathfinder. Hardcore all the way? Artesia RPG. Something completely different? Warhammer RPG 3° ed.
D&D Next will be a good choice to play some revamped old classics (Night's Dark Terror, The Lost City, Master of the Desert Nomads, Temple of Death, up to my all time favorite Sabre River) but it'll stay limited to nostalgia games. Unless it evolves into something more than what can be seen right now.

Not playing it, just reading the comments.

Nothing is making me want to move back from Pathfinder/Savage Worlds/(GURPS if can persuade the ingrates that I play with that it's not too complicated).

As Grump says, the dug a deep hole with 4 being SO different to D&D/AD&D/2nd/3/3.5.

Maybe 5th (not calling it Next. I buy clothes from Next) will be superb. I'm not holding my breath.

I've upgraded my opinion to neutral. I still think its a flop.

I mean... I'm not seeing what I'm getting out of this that I can't get elsewhere. Heck I still have my original red box, and old adventures are easily found if not torrented. So what would I get excited for?

I like that fighter shield block feat, otherwise.... Meh. Crack the Pathfinder Basic Set.

I've been reading up on two systems lately Shadowrun 4e which looks amazing, and Anima: Beyond Fantasy, which also looks amazing.

No Spycraft or True20 options in the survey, Grump?
(I was playing SW, and have now joined a True20 group and am enjoying it. The True20 rule book could be better organized, but the system works well in play.)

Although my perception of 5e has raised from pessimism to 'meh', I'm solidly in the "I play something else and it has got to be better than that" camp. Why would I want to adopt yet another system if it doesn't surpass the combination of satisfaction and experience with what I've already got. Plus, what I play gives me access to a huge body of existing material (from the d20/OGL/3.5/Pathfinder/... realm) and I'm familiar with adapting it to the systems I use these days.

I'm also pessimistic that whatever 5e is like when it rolls out, WotC will need to evolve it (i.e. mess with it) once the initial sales surge is over. WotC are firmly committed to being a rules rather than content provider, which means they have to keep generating rules to keep generating revenue (c.f. Paizo who don't need to mess with Pathfinder because they have a solid enough revenue stream from non-rule content). It is possible to do this well, but the need for high volume sales of each new rule add-on means WotC are likely to end up with the sort of rules arms race that characterized 2e. However good 5e is when it starts off, I'm afraid it will steadily morph into something cumbersome and rule heavy.

As for Backgrounds and Specialties, this seems to be just another case of a) 'me too' and b) D&D once again embedding overly prescriptive setting options into the core rules. Maybe WotC's plan is to produce an ongoing stream of new setting books that contain alternative 'official' backgrounds and specialties (kind of like the mess of race and class specific books that were generated for 2e). Having played in and created settings for different systems I much prefer a more modular approach to this sort of character variation. I only package things up (e.g. Backgrounds and Specialties) when a player needs guidance for their character (e.g. they are new to the game), or something in the setting warrants narrowly defining a specific class of character. The modular approach allows far more variation and personalization when creating and advancing characters, as well as being far easier to keep balanced.

I do like the magic users having a few use-whenever-you-feel-like-it abilities. As well as significantly increasing the playability of low level magic users, it also makes them far more accessible to players who don't enjoy the level of 'ammo' accounting that used to be required to run them. The challenge here is going to be getting the balance right.
- What other systems have this sort of openness around magic users abilities? How do they do it? And how well does it work?

The truely ultimate in Magic flexibilty was probaly Wizards RPG. Any spell caster could do any thing with magic. They just had to have the experince, and/or the time to do the casting. This meant high power mages could do simple or basci magics very quickly and with little effort, will very low power mages could potentially pull off very high level high power spells given enough time and luck.

Is this a comparison poll? 5e playtest vs other games? Not sure what/how to vote. Do I like the direction of 5e? yes. Is it better than other finished games? Probably not yet. I haven't played a lot of those games, but at least I have a lot to pick vs 5e playtest! So much more is yet to come and still we have at least a year plus before final product can be fairly contrasted. Can't imagine switching from my favorite system to a early playtest. IMHO

Hoping PAX WoTC Penny arcade playtest and other Con news will give me a clearer picture of where they are headed. Would also like to hear what (if any) OGL news will be addressed in the next few weeks. (NOT holding breath but would welcome a surprize)

Things I like this go round, lower HP, monster blocks, no skills (insert backgrounds specialties) and sling down from a 1d6 to 1d4!

That is my LEAST favorite change. I LIKE having skill checks. Gives the characters more to do than just what they did at character creation.

Just a quick note, I LOVE SKILLS TOO!! (I have run many a night on skill checks alone!) but....

I never liked my dim witted dwarf making arcana checks, especially when natural 20s pop up. Or history, or stealth, or whatever skill he had never trained in. ( but still got a +5 on)

I really like backgrounds, themes, specialties, expertise and the like to explain my AWSOME SKILLS!!

Fair point, but a similar situation could be resolved by just disallowing crazy skill rolls. Then again, you can still do that HERE, just in a non-skilled manner. :\

Played this week end, trying the various options in having a character go forward up to the 4th level.
Changed the vote from Positive Neutral to Negative Neutral.

Bounded accuracy is most responsible for this debacle. It seems the lesson from 4E hasn't been studied enough, the characters grow, gain new features, and still they lack actual progression - the game is balanced, and very, very bland. Moreover the classes gain right off the bat a boatload of bonus, which taper off along the levels - instead of increasing in a fast, slow or in-between rythm - and this just doesn't help.
Lack of extensive personalization options is the second culprit: there's still way too much "hardcoding" for feats and skills - I thought that it was similar to the one seen in DragonAGE (closer system, complexity-wise) at least in quantity, but I was wrong.

Mmmmhh... hope fading.

I have now play-tested this release three times. Twice at first level and once at Fifth. I played the play-test Wizard the first two sessions and I played a halfling rogue for the third time. I like some things and am not huge on others. I still fell like I need more of the system before making a commitment. Things like magic items, multiclassing and race/class choices will be a big part of what drives my decision (on top of the point I have brought up before that center around how easily one can go about learning to play).

I will be submitting the most recent survey soon (haven't looked at it yet).

On a side note, I have now seen in play:
Dwarven Fighter (two sessions)
Dwarven Sorcerer (one session)
Elven Wizard (two sessions)
Halfling Rogue (three sessions) - different players
Human Cleric (one session)

I've...lost all interest. I haven't even really looked at the most recent files. Not sure why. Haven't played so it hasn't put me off. Just done nothing to reach out and grab me.

I am still sitting on the positive side of neutral. The three times I have played I have enjoyed being a player instead of a DM and enjoyed the fact that the DM didn't have to know much more than the rest of us and didn't have hardly any prep time to create his own thing.

I don't feel like I have seen anything ground-shakingly awesome yet though.

My opinion is that multiclassing will be a BIG part of what people use to rate the system. We shall see how this one goes...

I've kind of taken the mentality of the "it'll turn out fine or fail without me helping".

Basically, I think taking a giant pool of input is either token (where they've already decided what they're going to do) or it's going to not make anybody happy.

Besides, got too much to do these days!

I honestly don't know what I want out of a multiclass system. I know that there are things that I don't like about both systems that I have seen in play (3.X and 4e). I agree that the cherry-picking effect should be avoided, but I also want something that will feel more like multiclassing than 4e's first attempt. Hybrid classes were a step in the right direction, but my table only ever saw one in play and that was for all of a session or two.

It sounds like they are combing 3.X multiclassing with 4e's hybrid design. The idea has potential, but I guess that I am going to have to hold my breath for it to show up.

I have not seen all that much multiclassing in Pathfinder, and when I have it has been with classes that share some abilities (Rogue with Ranger, Rogue with Bard, Fighter with Ranger) and always the same two players - who are also the ones likely to go for prestige classes (can you spot the duelist?).

Pathfinder handled it by making the base classes pretty attractive throughout.

4e handled it by... not handling it. It sounds like they realize that multiclassing was one of the places where they dropped the ball, and want to fix it.

Me, I would rather see minor imbalances if it means that folks want to play their character than see perfect, static, balance. There are elements in the 5e playtest that already has me worried in that regard.

The Auld Grump

I played the fighter today. It was a nice combo to have two characters in the party with the Defender ability (myself and the Sorcerer had it). Giving disadvantage was nice, and so was Parry and Protect (negating damage). At the same time, I felt like I was wanting more options. Cleave would have come in handy and so would some movement. All in all, I think I am warming up to it more, but not willing to change my answer yet.