Dungeons & Dragons Next Release Date, New Product, Leak - Update

[Thaluikhain]

As an aside, what's wrong with THAC0? Hear people complaining about it, but isn't it just what you need to roll To Hit Armour Class Zero, and if the armour class isn't zero, it changes what you need to roll?

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Kahani]

$49.95 for the PHB? Seems a bit steep to me considering 3, 3.5, 4th, and even Essentials were all $35 or less.

Inflation exists. According to this calculator [http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html] £21 ($35) in 2000 is equivalent to £30 ($50) today, so the price seems to be exactly right relative to 3rd edition at least. While later editions may have been cheaper, they can't just keep dropping the price forever so at some point there has to be a step back up again.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

As an aside, what's wrong with THAC0? Hear people complaining about it, but isn't it just what you need to roll To Hit Armour Class Zero, and if the armour class isn't zero, it changes what you need to roll?

Seems reasonable to me.

There's no arguing with THAC0 people I've learned, it makes sense to them but to everyone else it seems a little weird... I would say it has to do with the "oddity" of the Math more than anything specifically wrong with the concept of "To Hit Armour Class 0" as, at least to me, it seems as if it'll require some head math with nearly every attack, too many floating modifiers... if that makes any sense...

 

[Thaluikhain]

As an aside, what's wrong with THAC0? Hear people complaining about it, but isn't it just what you need to roll To Hit Armour Class Zero, and if the armour class isn't zero, it changes what you need to roll?

Seems reasonable to me.

There's no arguing with THAC0 people I've learned, it makes sense to them but to everyone else it seems a little weird... I would say it has to do with the "oddity" of the Math more than anything specifically wrong with the concept of "To Hit Armour Class 0" as, at least to me, it seems as if it'll require some head math with nearly every attack, too many floating modifiers... if that makes any sense...

Well, how does it work nowdays then? Surely you've got to do some maths to determine it?

 

[LiMaSaRe]

I dont want to see what theyve done to Faerun this time. Im willing to try Next's system but Im probably still going to use lore and fluff from 3.5 and prior.

 

[guise709]

I dont want to see what theyve done to Faerun this time. Im willing to try Next's system but Im probably still going to use lore and fluff from 3.5 and prior.

D&D 5e is a solid system and if you're coming off from 3.5 you're going to enjoy it. It got rid of a lot of the needless complexity that 3.5 had. The playtest also did a good job of getting player feedback in there to further refine the rules. The complexity of rules might change when more sourcebooks come out.

The only problem I have is that it runs on a D20 system which I no longer enjoy anymore. Like all the previous editions of D&D the mechanics doesn't support the character concepts. The grids hamper player creativity as well imo.

Source: I'm a GM to a Shadowrun 5e and a D&D 5e playtest campaign. I'm currently eagerly waiting to finish my D&D campaign so I can run another system (I'm retiring from D20).

 

[Ratty]

As an aside, what's wrong with THAC0? Hear people complaining about it, but isn't it just what you need to roll To Hit Armour Class Zero, and if the armour class isn't zero, it changes what you need to roll?

Seems reasonable to me.

There's no arguing with THAC0 people I've learned, it makes sense to them but to everyone else it seems a little weird... I would say it has to do with the "oddity" of the Math more than anything specifically wrong with the concept of "To Hit Armour Class 0" as, at least to me, it seems as if it'll require some head math with nearly every attack, too many floating modifiers... if that makes any sense...

Well, how does it work nowdays then? Surely you've got to do some maths to determine it?

I've not played any AD&D 1e or 2e (I'd like to try it, but you need a group for that of course) but I think what really throws most people off about THAC0 is that a lower armor class is better. People like to think that a higher armor class = more armor and thus more protection = harder to hit. Rather than a higher AC meaning you're more bulky/unprotected and likely to be hit/take more damage like in THAC0.

 

[Mabster]

Well, how does it work nowdays then? Surely you've got to do some maths to determine it?

THAC0:

1. The attacker rolls and adds modifiers.
2. The attacker subtracts the modified roll from their THAC0.
3. The result is compared to the defender's AC.

A player rolls 12 with a +2 modifier to attack an enemy with AC 5. The player's THAC0 is 16.
The player's attack will hit an AC of 2 or worse. The enemy's AC is higher than 2. Hit!

Ascending AC:

1. The attacker rolls and adds modifiers.
2. The result is compared to the defender's AC.

A player rolls 12 with a +2 modifier to attack an enemy with AC 10.
The player's attack is higher than the enemy's AC. Hit!

THAC0 is fine, it's just that the ascending AC systems are more elegant and intuitive. It's always personal preference, but THAC0 does tend to slow thing down.

 

[Anachronism]

As an aside, what's wrong with THAC0? Hear people complaining about it, but isn't it just what you need to roll To Hit Armour Class Zero, and if the armour class isn't zero, it changes what you need to roll?

Seems reasonable to me.

I'm inclined to agree. You get so many attack modifiers in the later editions that it becomes at least as much of a headache to keep track of them as THAC0 was. It's a bit of an odd system, but I never really understood why people dislike it so much.

 

[The Hungry Samurai]

$49.95 for the PHB? Seems a bit steep to me considering 3, 3.5, 4th, and even Essentials were all $35 or less.

Inflation exists. According to this calculator [http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html] £21 ($35) in 2000 is equivalent to £30 ($50) today, so the price seems to be exactly right relative to 3rd edition at least. While later editions may have been cheaper, they can't just keep dropping the price forever so at some point there has to be a step back up again.

I'm going to have to disagree there. Yes the value of the dollar has gone up, but look at the prices of these PHB's

2nd ed $30 (1989)
3rd ed $20 (2000)
3.5 ed $35 (2003)
4th ed $30 (2008)
Essentials $20 (2010)

Somehow I doubt that the increase is waranted especially when you consider most gaming books can be run with the purchase of only ONE core rulebook as opposed to D&D's common model of requiring a PHB, DMG, and a Monster Manual. This doesn't seem like good business unless they're changing things up and combining at least the PHB and DMG into one book.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

People tend to prefer the systems they start with.

I have never found that to be the case. I don't know why it's such a popular theory.

I started with 2nd Ed. I liked it well enough, but found certain aspects of modification frustrating.

I moved up to 3.0. Loved it. I initially scorned the 3.5 update as a money grab, but really liked the adjustments it made and moved on up. Played that until 4th, which I didn't like the feel of (although I did like certain mechanics from it) and I made the jump over to the Pathfinder Alpha playtest - then onto the Beta, and the full release. I've been with Pathfinder ever since and have no inclination to look back (or to 5th Ed).

Most of my gamer friends either started in 2nd Ed and moved up to 3rd/3.5/Pathfinder, or they started in 3.0/3.5, moved up to 4th Ed, and ALSO play Pathfinder (and Dark Heresy and other systems as well).

Interestingly, one of my 3rd Ed friends who prefers 4th ed prefers it because he's a power gamer and 4th ed's restrictions prevent him from effectively power gaming (and thus make the game more challenging for him).

My preference for 3/3.5/Pathfinder has always been due to customization. I like being able to mess with classes and systems and so forth, and those versions keeps things open and easy to modify. 2nd Ed and particularly 4th Ed actively work to prevent modification (the 4th Ed monsters are actually made the same way 3rd Ed ones are, but there is no guide to creating monsters - I only figured this out while attempting to back-convert some of the creatures). As someone who likes to create strange and unique characters and adapt my gaming experience to all sorts of different things, that makes 4th Ed (and 2nd Ed where I started) very off-putting.

So yeah, starting with a system rarely (in my experience) has anything to do with preference. Play style does, which I suppose could be influenced by system, but otherwise I don't see any connection between the two.

 

[castlewise]

As an aside, what's wrong with THAC0? Hear people complaining about it, but isn't it just what you need to roll To Hit Armour Class Zero, and if the armour class isn't zero, it changes what you need to roll?

Seems reasonable to me.

I'm inclined to agree. You get so many attack modifiers in the later editions that it becomes at least as much of a headache to keep track of them as THAC0 was. It's a bit of an odd system, but I never really understood why people dislike it so much.

Next got rid of a lot of the modifiers. Now instead of getting granted "+2 to hit" you get "advantage" which means you get to roll the d20 twice and take the larger of the two. Disadvantage works similarly but you get the lower of the two rolls. Its not as fine tuned of a system (multiple sources of advantage dont stack, for example) but its easy to use. They say here http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140210 that its one of the more successful new ideas of the playtest. There are still some modifiers, but they tend to be reserved for things that will last more than one turn, usually an entire encounter.

 

[craddoke]

bah all these people referring to it as 2ed! its AD&D you peasants !

No love for 1e? I remember when 2e was the over-simplified, kid-friendly version with too much PC customization fappery (I think 3e/PF/4e have forever redefined what counts as too much customization fappery, though).

 

[Pyrian]

Between 1983 and 1985, I acquired the full set of AD&D 1Ed rulebooks (with the orange spines) ending the collection with Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures (all with that same orange spine). ... In 1989, the 2nd Ed rules were introduced, and examined thoroughly (by me), and there was one rule that had to be thrown out. The THAC0 rule.

What? How did you even roll to-hit? THAC0 was in the AD&D 1st edition DMG, and worked exactly the same then as it did in 2nd edition. All they changed for 2ed were some slight modifications to the level progression.

EDIT: 1ed AD&D did have that enormous table for people who couldn't do simple math. Was that it? Was that the difference that broke you? We never needed to use the table, since it was just adding the AC to the THAC0. Not rocket science.

 

[spartandude]

As an aside, what's wrong with THAC0? Hear people complaining about it, but isn't it just what you need to roll To Hit Armour Class Zero, and if the armour class isn't zero, it changes what you need to roll?

Seems reasonable to me.

To new people its a bit unintuitive, nearly every other system has high armour/class being good. I was in for a shock when i started playing Baldurs gate after 4th edition. Dont get me wrong its not a bad system at all, its just confusing at first.

 

[Fairy Fatale]

I can't say I've ran into any person with a shred of game design integrity or optimization experience who thinks that Next is anything other than a pile of trash. The D&D playerbase seems to have trouble differentiating between technical language (and game mechanics) from the fluff of the system and the setting. Fluff serves design, not the other way around.

WotC has been catering to the vocal crowd who wants to take D&D back fifteen years. While I agree that every edition of the game has something going for it, Next seems to be allergic to the things that seemed to work in 4th Edition. That most recent edition has its share of haters, most of whom cry too loudly that they find it impossible to roleplay under the system for some reason, but that is no cause to ignore some of the important design decisions the designers made.

tl;dr?

Are you playing D&D? Keep playing the edition you love and save yourself some money. Next will disappoint.

 

[Midniqht]

Cool. I'm really looking forward to the official release. Been playing with the playtest packets for several months now, and so far, I'm really liking it.

For those saying that "Next will disappoint," I'm thinking they're just a little butthurt and pining over their old editions. If you don't like Next, stick with the edition you've got and stop moping about it already. I've played 3.5e, 4e, and now Next/5e, and I much prefer Next's system for both combat and role-playing. Your opinions (because that's what they are - not facts) come off simply as whiny. Let people choose the edition they want and be happy with it.

Next has gone through over a year of playtesting and feedback from the community. Those that have been testing it have shaped it into what will be coming out.

 

[Fairy Fatale]

No butthurt, just years of game design experience. I cherish each and every edition of D&D, and I am upset because I see an edition being released that, for all the community feedback, still has glaring rules loopholes, design errors and sloppy language--objective flaws with the game that the designers (or those in charge of documentation) are not addressing. Maybe they'll tidy it up for release, but the last twenty years have not given me any reason to believe they will. WotC routinely ignores the optimization community who are more likely any other subset of D&D players to spot, exploit and provide fixes for gaping holes in your rules logic. They are the ones who will come to you and say, "by the rules as written, this is broken broken broken. You might wanna patch it."

So no, no butthurt. Objectivism. But believe me, I want to be wrong. I love D&D, and I want it to do well. No benefit is gained by ignoring the flaws in the system and apologizing for the company who won't address them.

Captcha: fancy pants (why yes, I do!)

 

[Ratty]

No butthurt, just years of game design experience. I cherish each and every edition of D&D, and I am upset because I see an edition being released that, for all the community feedback, still has glaring rules loopholes, design errors and sloppy language--objective flaws with the game that the designers (or those in charge of documentation) are not addressing. Maybe they'll tidy it up for release, but the last twenty years have not given me any reason to believe they will. WotC routinely ignores the optimization community who are more likely any other subset of D&D players to spot, exploit and provide fixes for gaping holes in your rules logic. They are the ones who will come to you and say, "by the rules as written, this is broken broken broken. You might wanna patch it."

So no, no butthurt. Objectivism. But believe me, I want to be wrong. I love D&D, and I want it to do well. No benefit is gained by ignoring the flaws in the system and apologizing for the company who won't address them.

Captcha: fancy pants (why yes, I do!)

But if they fix all the flaws, how will WotC be able to release 5.5e two to four years from now? Cynical perhaps, and I've not played or read a lot about Next, but I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen.