D&D Next - Pregame Thoughts

I'll be honest, I don't have high hopes for this. I'm looking at the upcoming Swords and Friends of the Kegasus playtest session of D&D Next as an opportunity to generate some interesting blog and podcast content.

By the way, did you know we have a podcast? You can check it out on iTunes or at our website - swordsofthekegasus.com.

Just look at these assholes.

I didn't like the 4th edition. Sure, it had something to do with the fact that the characters in my 4th ed. game ripped through the opponents I set before them without breaking a sweat. More important, however, was why they did. The system felt overly concerned with combat and fast-paced action, whereas I always liked a slower game with diplomacy and sneaking. I felt like a first level player had an arsenal more akin to a fourth or fifth level player in previous versions.

But anyway, I've finally found time to read over the material our gaming overlords at Wizards of the Coast have given us and I'm not sure what to think. I initially recoiled at the thought of playing in a setting I did not create. In fact, I immediately launched into imagining a new setting before reading any of the rules. It turns out they don't give you enough core gameplay stuff to get into it that much.

Our usual game has goblin labor unions in it, so maintaining unique gaming environments has become kind of a point of pride.

Anyway, once I'd resigned myself to playing the Caves of Chaos, I was pleased to discover just how much the module allows for personalization and nonlinear gameplay. All I need to do is figure out why the heroes are going there and come up with some cool backstory to explain the gathering of monsters they'll encounter. No problem.

What makes me sad is that my chief complaint about the 4th edition has survived. Both the cleric and wizard sample characters have what they call "minor spells" which they may cast at will, and without preparing. That kind of stuff was what knocked me flat before. I understand that these classes need to be viable on a turn-by-turn basis, but it just kills it for me.

"Ok, you blast 'em all, and we'll just stay here and burn one down."

It kills the magic.

I dislike this for two reasons.  First, it completely changes the gaming dynamic traditionally involved with a class like the wizard. He's supposed to suck a little. These new wizards can blast magic missile every turn without getting tired but when you break it down, strip away the narrative trappings, all you get is an archer-type character who dies a little easier and never runs out of arrows.

In a standard encounter, the wizard shouldn't just be the guy in the back row covering his allies in close combat with the enemy. No, he's the guy the rest of them are protecting because he's got a few tricks up his sleeve - not many - but when he uses them, shit gets real. That's the way a spellcaster should work in my book.

Add to that the fact that it cheapens magic as a narrative element. I know a couple of medium-power ranged attacks don't need to be game-changers from a nuts and bolts perspective, but stop and think about what that means to the story and game world.  It makes the use of magic such a casual thing that I don't see the need for it. It's about as magical as putting guns in the world.

Hopefully you'll hear from me again soon and I'll let you know how it all went. Until then, keep rolling.

j!