Musings on dndnext playtest

So, like many others, I have had the time to look over the playtest rules of dndnext. I haven’t played yet, that won’t be until the 12th of June.

As a DM of many years, I have always had a weakness for the monsters. I love my D&D monsters, and I see a lot of good in the playtest monsters. I love the 4e monsters, especially the ease of making them and balancing them so that could really test the party, but they just have way, way too many hit points, the most interesting abilities have been neutered and their lore section is often lacking or really bland. The monsters of the playtest seem better in all three regards. There are definitely some cool and awesome (read: abilities that will make my players cry) monster abilities in the few statblocks. For example, I love the stirge, the wight, the medusa and the gray ooze abilities. Regarding lore, I find it significantly better than it has been for years, perhaps since 2e (2e MM is by far my favorite). I also thing it is all kinds of awesome that immunities have returned. I was happy when they were taken out, but after playing 4e with a lack of immunities, I must admit that I was mistaken. It just doesn’t feel right. Last but not least, I just love little quirky details like the one about the glowing beetles. Hit point wise, it also looks better. I haven’t done any hardcore math, but it doesn’t feel completely off.

Moving on to the classes and races, I also find myself fairly satisfied. The dndnext playtest has a lot of things to like, like the return of Vancian casting, one of my few regrets with 4e, like the cleric having spontaneous casting (I always thought they should at least be slightly different from wizards), or like the change in dailies for martial characters. While the 4e style of daily attacks never bothered me, I definitely prefer martial characters being based on at-will attacks and have any daily or encounter powers to be something different than special attacks. The Fighter’s Surge and the rogue’s Lucky abilities feel just right. I also like the channel divinity system, which can be used for different spells/powers. Should work great to diversify the cleric class. I am also a huge fan of the class-theme-background system. So many interesting possibilities for customization within an established framework.

Not everything is perfect though. Obviously. It’s a very early playtest. The fighter seems a tad bland, perhaps even weak. I am not sure just how bad it is. A little tweaking to the armors and the inclusion of attacks of opportunity would probably fix it - at least at the first 3 levels. The interesting thing will however be how it scales, compared to say the wizard.

Speaking of scaling, I am not totally over the moon about the rogue’s sneak attack. +1d6 per level seems insane. Especially considering that the rogue’s ability to get advantage seems (at least for the playtest) to rely heavily on the DM’s (good) graces.

I am also not a big fan of absolutes - at least when given to the players. Poison immunity to all dwarves and charm/sleep immunity to all elves seems a tad much. Why not just use the advantage/disadvantage mechanics?

As mentioned earlier, I really like how dndnext reads. The rules seem quick to play and easy to understand. Very intuitive, if that makes any sense. There were a few things I didn’t like, live the overnight healing, but luckily it’s completely dissociated from the rest of the rules, so it’s fairly easy to change just how many hit points a night’s rest gives you. The same way, I am not a fan of the surprise system. Just going last seems a tad lame if you are ambushed, and it also creates combats where you have 7 monsters going together every round, something which I have worked hard to avoid since 2e, since that usually leads to a higher number of TPK’s in my games. And as my players will tell you, even if not asked, there are more than enough TPK’s in my campaigns. The last thing that I really didn’t like, at least on paper, is the no-CON-modifier to hit points. Yeah, I know, it wasn’t part of 4e, but somehow it just makes sense. I might view it in a more favorable light after actually playing some dndnext, but we will have to wait about 12 days for that.

So that was the 3 things I didn’t like, which leaves a hell of a lot that I did like. From the simple skill checks (which are actually ability checks), to the contest mechanic (opposed rolls, but can be int vs dex), to the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, the rules are very easy to understand, and they do not get in your way. It’s a game you can pick up and “get” in very short order. Sure, there are probably a few things that need tweaking, like the DC’s of skill checks, but that’s what a playtest is for too, no?

Overall, I will say that I think that WotC have made a good, simple basis for a core game. One could say that they have made a game with the essentials, so perhaps it is a pity that we have a game called Essentials. That name might have been more fitting. The system is flexible, seems robust and at the same time easy to tinker with. It reads as if it runs quickly, and most importantly, it feels like D&D.

I am pretty sure that I will soon exclusively be playing dndnext.