D&D Next Thoughts

My thoughts on the D&D Next 05/24/12 Playtest:

I will post my thoughts on D&D Next, as I experienced it, in several sections. Each section will focus on a different aspect of the playtest material(magic, non-magical characters, monster creation, character creation, skill tests/challenges, simplicity vs expansive rules, and a summary of changes I'd like to see made).


Magic:
My first thought was how annoying Vancian Magic is. For those who don't know, Vancian Magic is a gameplay feature that limits a mage's spells to a small number per day. For instance: In D&D Next, a level 1 Wizard can cast 3 spells per day... and nothing can grant him more.
Now I understand the goal of semi-realism(No amount of training can grant you infinite usage of magic), but this style of magic usage detracts from the only good point of being a Wizard outside of pure role-playing.
In combat a magic wielding character is useless without magic, and outside of combat there are a variety of situations in which magic makes the game more enjoyable. By limiting me to a few spells per day, I am forced to sit in the back and hurl insults while my friends actually play the game.

To be fair, let me point out the GOOD and the BAD points of different magic types in Tabletop RPGs: Vancian Magic(D&D 3.0, Next Playtest), Magic Points(Dragon Age), Power Cards(D&D 4e)

Vancian Magic - Good
There is a feel of semi-realism. In a "Dungeon Crawl" session you feel good when you unleash a powerful spell against a mini-boss, only to have your spells back next session.
Vancian Magic - Bad
Most adventures span multiple encounters during a single day, leaving the mage as useless dead weight for most of the adventure. You feel like a fresh-off-the-bus magic student ready to learn how to light a candle with your magic, when in fact you're supposed to be a well trained apprentice ready to set out into the world. You have to judge which spells are going to be most effective at the start of each day, predicting the future.

Magic Points - Good
You can decide which spells are more important in the middle of encounters. Magic Points can be regained, through the use of potions or even a quick 30 minute nap in some systems.
Magic Points - Bad
Math. Extra Micro-management(always a drawback for new players). Depending upon how brazen you are when selecting spells, can lead to less spells per day than Vancian Magic at early levels.

Power Cards - Good
Minor spells can be cast mutiple times throughout the day, while powerful spells are limited to 1 time use. Spells are easy to read and remember. A level 1 Wizard actually feels like a real Wizard.
Power Cards - Bad
High Fantasy feel(not always bad). Brings a staleness to the group when used for things non-magical, such as a Fighter's Martial abilites.

As you can see, the magic systems that I have used each have strong and weak points. In keeping with the Vancian Magic feel that D&D Next is shooting for(to appeal to old-school gamers), I offer this suggestion:
Keep the Vancian Magic with a twist. Allow each magical class(Wizard, Cleric, etc...) to gain a single Encounter Spell(4e style) at level 2 or 3. There can be a set of 3 or so Encounter spells to choose from at first which grows every five or so levels. Having a single Encounter Spell makes the magic class feel useful during most encounters, but does not take away the Vancian feel for the most part.

Since D&D Next is supposed to bring old-school gamers and 4e gamers together in compromise, I feel that this magic approach may do exactly that; compromise.


Non-magical characters:
As with most Tabletop RPG systems, the Warrior and Rogue become generic cardboard cut-outs. The Warrior hits things and gets little else to do the entire game. The Rogue is good at stealing things and picking locks, and DPS fighting to an extent.
Now I'm aware of some things (like themes and backgrounds) that add some flavor and usefulness to these classes, but I'll cover that in the Character Creation post. As for now, I'd like to point out my favorite thing about D&D 4e: Non-combat powers.
If D&D Next does one thing for the non-magical classes, let it be the inclusion of varied powers for them. For instance: Things like Endure Pain(From 4e) or a special Intimidate option just for Martial characters. I understand the desire to distance the Martial characters from the feeling of "spells" that 4e had, but keeping the Utility Powers around in some manner would greatly benefit them. One of the reasons I never play a Warrior is that all they are good for is swinging their weapon. I like a bit of variety in my gameplay.
I also like my rogues to be less thief and more acrobat. It's a personal preference, but it is a valid request. As stated previously, the Themes and Background options in Next seem like they might make this available to me. I'll just have to wait until the next playtest to see.

All that being said; I think Next is headed in an acceptible direction for Non-magical characters. I just hope that they look at all the options before slapping a cookie-cutter class at me.


Monster Creation:
Nothing is given on the monster creation process, but I thought I'd give my thoughts on monsters in general. So far it seems like we've gone back to old school monsters. Now for me this isn't a problem, as I have been creating my own monsters for years and have an easy system in place regardless of the game. Unfortunately, not everyone is as lucky, or driven to devise their own monster creation system.
Monster creation was one of the main aspects of 4e that they put a lot of effort into. While I wasn't super impressed with 4e's way of monster creation either, it was nice that they worked so hard on it. I hope that as time goes by, they put as much effort into Next's monster creation system as well. I will be sorely disappointed if they just slap a bunch of monsters together and expect us to use them, like in older versions of the game.
One of my biggest complaints about pre-generated monsters in Tabletop RPGs is the lack of explanations. The monster stat block might go into super detail about where the monster comes from and how many languages it speaks, but offer no reason for why it gets a random +2 to its attack roll. A good example is the Bugbear in the Next playtest: The page mentions what it looks like, what it sounds like, what languages it speaks, its combat strategies, its society and culture, specialized lore... but no explanation for why it recieves a +4 to attack rolls with a javelin when it only has +2 DEX modifier. As a veteren player, I assume it has proficiency with the javelins, granting it extra attack. Unfortunately, my assumptions can not be proven to someone who asks for an explanation. If I were a new DM I might never understand how to create my own monsters if I'm never told why certain stats exist.
Using the Bugbears as an example again, let's take a look at something odd. Take the following sentence straight from the Tactics section of the page: Often, they send scouts ahead to gain information about their prey and then coordinate an attack using sound, if not brilliant, tactics.
Keyword "brilliant". So why does a Bugbear have an Intelligence of 8(-1 modifier)? Maybe military tactics fall under Wisdom? 10(0 modifer). Nope, they still don't seem "brilliant". Sometimes looking at monster stats, in a multitude of games, it just seems like someone threw together random numbers and assigned a name to those numbers. Balanced stats is one thing, but forgoing continuity in an effort to keep the monster low-leveled is just inexcusable.


Character Creation:
I'm more than a little excited for the next playtest, if only to see some character creation options. At least I hope they include them. They claim that the reason character creation was excluded from the first playtest is because they want to be sure that the core rules are working. Character creation is part of the core rules. Without it, the rules mean nothing.
I spend more time creating characters than most, and I can assure you that pouring over the different abilities and powers and themes and weapons and whatever else is the best way to test most rules. Yes I need to enter a battle at some point, and yes I need to interact with an NPC; but those are only part of it. And without having selected what character I'm using, combat and role-playing are pointless and not fun.
What sounds good about character creation in Next is the Background and Theme options. I'm not sure if Backgrounds are going to be optional like in previous editions, but the Themes seem to fill a void I never noticed was empty before. In a previous edition I might have decided to make a Warrior who acts as a wall between his allies and the enemies, or a Warrior who kills things fast. The choice was usually a role-playing one, and had little effect on how the character performed in battle: All Warriors were basically the same. 4e took a good step in seperating different playstyles, but fell a bit short with the generic "Role" system (Defender, Striker, Controller, etc.). It seems that Next is taking that generic system and allowing you to choose for yourself.
I have yet to see; but it looks like I may be able to create a Wizard who acts as a Defender Role, or a Warrior who acts as a Controller Role. While the Themes are a bit more advanced than that, you get the idea. How much fun does it sound like to have you frontline fighter dictating where and when the enemies can move. (4e's Warlord and Swordmage could pull this off to an extent if you built them right.)


Skill tests/challenges:
Not much has changed in this department for as long as I've been playing. I still like Skill Checks and dislike Skill Challenges. For more on my feelings toward Skill Challenges, see my future Blog post about them specifically.
As far as I'm concerned, unless they decide to copy my idea for how to resolve Skill Challenges that I'll mention another day, there isn't anything more they can do for this gameplay mechanic.


Simplicity vs Expansive Rules:
4e was a simplistic rule set. 3.0/3.5 was an expansive rule set. Each system had its own strengths and weakness, but they shared a core experience that was fun for the players. 4e was very newbie friendly and very new DM friendly. As far as I'm concerned this is the best system for people who want to try it, but don't want to micro-manage. As a DM I hate micro-managing, but as a player I don't mind so much. So I am good with almost every Tabletop system I've ever tried, including a few broken ones. 3.0 was overly complicated in my opinion, but it was a lot of fun as a player. 3.5 supposedly fixed a lot of issues, but it still felt like the same game to me. If you ask me, the choice to make 4e was a good one, even if gamers weren't super happy with it.
Sometimes you want complicated, expansive gameplay. Sometimes you want simple. Having both available to you is a good thing. I personally think that Next should attempt one last time to make the perfect system. And when it fails(because "perfect" doesn't exist) they should focus on producing adventures and miniatures for the three biggest systems in their franchise. Lord knows there aren't nearly enough official miniatures for 4e; and 3.0, 4e, and Next gamers will always want more adventures. How about working on adventure seeds (the likes of the time traveling party in the 4e DM guide, or the Blood in Ferelden book for Dragon Age). I could get behind buying a book of adventures and seeds for multiple systems, some old and some new. Creating adventures for the newest system and converting them to the more popular ones would make Wizard money for decades. And reprinting the core books once in a while.


A summary of changes I'd like to see made to D&D Next for the next playtest:
 - Keep the Vancian Magic with a twist. Allow each magical class(Wizard, Cleric, etc...) to gain a single Encounter Spell(4e style) at level 2 or 3.
 - If D&D Next does one thing for the non-magical classes, let it be the inclusion of varied powers for them.
 - Give more detailed explanations for monster stats and why they exist.


Most of the issue with 4e was sales, caused by bad marketing stategy and stubborn gamers. You can't do anything about the latter except call them stupid for being narrow-minded, but the marketing can be fixed easily. With what they learned from 4e, I have full faith that Next can be the next big thing in Tabletop gaming, as long as they get the right rule system in place.
Here's to hoping they get it right.