Decent summary. One thing I've noticed in reading over the material a second time is how much 4th edition is still there. They've been careful to go to great lengths to write "around" it, which can be amusing. The section on "Space" in the Combat chapter is particularly illustrative.
"A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide... there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat... eight creatures can fir in a 5-foot radius around another one." So... your character takes up one square on a grid, and only one creature can occupy each of the eight around it. It was much easier in 4e to use a picture of a grid, but this is "Theater of the Mind" gameplay, and they have to explain the obvious. They even have a variant rules sidebar here to explain what a grid system is. They are presenting themselves as if 4e never existed, and no one uses miniatures.
Cantrips are another example of this. They put a paragraph explaining how they are used, when all they need to say is "Cantrips are At Will Powers." Anyone who played 4e would immediately understand. But I think that is a central element of this version, to disavow any association with 4e. It bombed for them, and they are overreacting in their counter to that fact. I went to the local game store on Tuesday to pick up a copy of the Starter Set. They said they didn't carry D&D products, there was no demand for them. Hopefully, that changes with this set.
I also wonder about the shift of power. It does feel like spell casters have become much more central in this edition. I'm not sure I like that, but am prepared to play out several encounters to see if it is true or an illusion. There does seem to be a built-in need to play multiple encounters strung together in order to balance the classes out. That seems logical, but I worry that it is an artificial contrivance to force some balance into the system. It will work fine for the 20-somethings running regular campaigns, but for those of us squeezing in the odd gaming session, it feels like an over shift toward spells.
I'm glad they strengthened the casters, and gave them more relevance, especially early in their advancement, but it seems like they may have overdone it a bit.
I had thought of building some higher level characters to test that out myself, but haven't developed enough to get a read yet. I really don't expect a different conclusion than what you've given. I did notice Help as an action you can take that gives advantage to another party member who acts before your next turn. This sounds like it might be their replacement for flanking. I'm holding out hope that the Player's Handbook will allow a broader implementation of optional rules for situations like this. From what I've read online, it sounds like Feats will be an optional game element. That feels like a bad idea in the long haul, but if it allows for a better encounter experience, I'll be happy. My concern is that it will create an untenable core gaming mechanic.
I'm worried that they've created a system through play testing that will work well at low levels, but fall off at higher levels. They've set a cap at 20th level, they have limits on proficiency bonuses, ability bonuses, etc., that seem low. Combined with AC bonuses on play test monsters that seem fixed at low values, it appears the game will either stall after 6 or 7 levels and flat line, with increased level and power of monsters and characters expressed in HP alone, or become something more arbitrary and inexpressive with magic items used to separate higher levels. With the limits in place, it feels like old Basic D&D. I used that once to make a character, then bought the Expert Rules. This satisfied me for a month or two until I found out about Advanced D&D. This rule set has that simple feel. Hopefully, the options give it the flexibility of AD&D or this edition will have one final thing in common with 4e... a quick death.
It is pitched in an interesting way - lots of very introductory stuff. I read a comment online about the basic rules that noted that this is the first time any of D&D's rules have started by explaining what kind of game it is. It's a good point, and kind of a cool thing to do - though a bit odd to do it now, after decades of these kinds of games, and the pervasiveness of books and films that related to D&D. I know when I started playing, all anyone had to say was, it's like Tolkien - I knew what that meant! It's like Lord of the Rings - that gets to the core. This odd tone of acting like D&D never existed before runs side by side with a return to the kind of allusiveness the earlier versions had. The acknowledgments and warning at the beginning of the Basic Rules alluding to past D&D adventures; the jokes in the trinket list (the existence of a thing like a list of trinkets) - I spotted Terry Pratchett and Michael Jackson jokes - that kind of cheekiness is cool. And it reaches back to the early editions - ADD certainly - which were full of jokes and allusions and wholesale lifts from fantasy fiction, and other stuff... Otto's irresistible dance that made you shuffle off to buffalo.... I think that stuff is a good sign, really.
ReplyDelete