I recently got my playtest materials for the newest iteration of D&D, which has been named D&D Next, and I've been reflecting on the different editions I've played, and what I've liked about each of them. Anyone that's taken a cursory look at the reception to 4th knows that it did not go over well, for whatever reason. Some say that it's "too easy," as if WoTC has control of how the DM does his campaign, or that it's too close to a video game rather than a tabletop game. Somewhat awkward, considering that RPGs were born from the tabletop, so who knows. So, to psych myself up for playtesting, I'm wanting to consider what I liked about each edition.
As far as 3rd edition is concerned, I've only played the Wheel of Time RPG WoTC made back in 2001. There are mistakes all over the book, and unfortunately the bestiary is severely lacking, but the best thing about it is that there is a REASON magic is based on spells per day. Channeling is exhausting, but you have the option to continue if you must, so there's a great risk when you attempt to overchannel, especially if you're a man early on in the narrative. The armor and weapons are mediocre, and I found the monetary system to not reflect the books enough. The maps are great, and the character creation is one of my favorites due to the Backgrounds system. The classes are OK, but God help you if you try to make an Ogier character function at level one...because he's going to be not much help. One thing I really liked was the deal where a class naturally has an AC associated with it, and you can choose to use that or the armor you're wearing. This helps being a caster so much it's madness. One stray arrow tends to kill a level one wizard...
3.5 is where I began to play D&D. The experience was so full of freedom that I still vividly remember that night, sitting in a garage with four other PCs, and the DM describing what happened in a town depending on what we did. That just happened to include toes being bitten off, Michael Jackson molesting someone, and me getting my ass handed to myself because I made some dwarves mad somehow. As for the game system itself, I think it has a much better armor system than the WoT 3rd, but the weapons aren't differentiated enough to really matter. Also, and this will be a recurring issue, feats suck. Period. They aren't anywhere near as good as spells, and by the time you're eligible for Whirlwind, the wizard tosses out enough AoE for it to not matter. Getting bonus HP per level equal to CON is awesome...but Hit Die suck ass. Let us be honest here. A barbarian is so variable in his HP generation that he can get so dicked by dice that he may not be the damage soaker that he is supposed to be. Spellcasting is too hard up front, but gets too strong later, and the fighter becomes less and less important. That isn't right. Our investment into a character class ought to be rewarded by having a role that stays similar throughout the game. This is something that I know has been in since AD&D, and it needs to be addressed. Skills are also a problem in 3.5, because there are too many points being tossed around too often and too early. Lastly for now on this, my character never felt like he was really above and beyond a commoner, even though I was a PC, and had a character class. Enter fourth.
Fourth edition is basically my college edition of D&D. I loved character generation in it. You begin the game with plenty of HP for when you will get hit, and everyone has an option to regenerate those hit points, whether through a combat option or a special class that heals people. While I like the At-will, Encounter, and Daily concepts, I don't think that there were enough varied At-wills to really give enough interesting options, BUT it was incredibly badass to be a fighter that...I don't know, did something rather than say "I hit it with my sword." I don't think it's a problem, but the only reason to ever use a basic attack was for damage. Many of these abilities felt like I was being handed a character, and it lacked a lot of customization that people liked in 3.5, which only applied to spellcasters. I like how the defense stats were standardized like AC. It's only consistent to do so! Characters also naturally gain defenses, which helps that level 20 Archmage not get owned by a fighter half his level because he's too easy to hit. I prefer how skills work as well, since they're standardized. You are trained in X, Y, Z, here's your ability mod bonus, now every two levels you will get better at it naturally. Cool. Unfortunately, by PH3, they unbalanced the classes so radically that I felt bad playing my preferred Monk class. Races were also a big problem, and they varied and were so weird that it felt awkward to walk around with a crystalized humanoid...thing. I think that "standardized" is the way to regard 4th ed, whereas "randomized" can be said of the editions previous. I like standardized because of its consistency, and I think that's how I'm going to approach the playtest. As a quick final quip on 4th, it's got the best DMing kit and MM ever. I'm the sucker that DMs, and encounters are always good, have plenty of options for monsters, and lets me focus on the narrative of the battle and story instead of blind guessing the monsters' expected difficulty.
So, I think that WoTC will be best served by combining the two editions, but how that is done will be the issue.
I've also started writing some fantasy story stuff, so I'm going to post some thoughts about that here from now on.
Not Dead Yet!
