Biggest new thing I want to see in Next

Arcane magic for all!

My experience of 2nd ed. was, that wizards simply couldn't wear armor or use good weapons.
This changed in 3e.

In the other directions, wizards have EXCLUSIVITY in magic, but they can still fight using mundane ranged or melee methods, they're just not very good at it.

So here's my suggestion: Everyone with the prerequisite intelligence should be able to cast spells.
Now, naturally, they shouldn't be as good in it as wizards.

Let's take a look at a wizard's advantages when it comes to spell-casting:

First, they have spell slots, meaning they can memorize spells.
Second, they can just DECLARE they're casting a spell, without any sort of a die roll.

So, here's my suggestion:

Allow any character, who has access to a spell book they have acquainted themselves with, cast a spell from it, IF they have the necessary intelligence, AND they succeed in an intelligence check. (DC 15 seems appropriate for most cases).

In fact, I think this should be a general rule --- instead of classes giving EXCLUSIVE abilities to characters, they should instead make them BETTER at them.

Not anyone can succeed in a forward flip without training, but anyone with the courage may ATTEMPT it. And those who are fit and agile, WILL succeed at least some of the time.

So, a particularily pious and wise character, who is NOT a cleric, might with an appropriate roll, succeed in channeling the divine, for an example. And anyone who succeeds in stealth and maneuvering, should be able to attempt a sneak attack.

Now, this is NOT as important as just having good, functioning, relatively light-weight core rules, but I think it's a good principle to adhere to, if possible.  
Trust me, there are a lot of systems out there that are cheaper and worlds better than any edition of D&D.

Don't get me wrong, I love D&D



What.



Yeah he pretty much said DnD blows but I love it...I have a song for him to sing to DnD :D




This is all ready being done in Next as a feat. It's been said early on in the thread and I don't really see why this discussion has gone on past that.
This is all ready being done in Next as a feat. It's been said early on in the thread and I don't really see why this discussion has gone on past that.

The feat represents specific training, which should make you better at doing this (but not as good as someone who multiclasses).  This post is about letting everyone do it by default.

The metagame is not the game.

Which is a rotten idea that should die a death in a game with character classes. If you want a classless game then that's cool, I play and enjoy a few of those as well, but there's a reason I keep going back to character classes and that's basically that not everyone can do everything by default.
I guess the basic question is, should the wizard be the only one who can cast arcane spells? or should the wizard be the one who is best at casting arcane spells?  (Just talking basic four, for now.)

Because as it stands, the fighter is just the best fighter, ehile the wizard is both the worst fighter and the worst arcane spellcaster. You need comparison points if you want people to shine.

The metagame is not the game.

I guess the basic question is, should the wizard be the only one who can cast arcane spells? or should the wizard be the one who is best at casting arcane spells?  (Just talking basic four, for now.)

Because as it stands, the fighter is just the best fighter, ehile the wizard is both the worst fighter and the worst arcane spellcaster. You need comparison points if you want people to shine.


Which is why there are feats that enable some minor spellcasting and there will be other classes that do magic. Really, what we've got are five classes, two of which are basically fighters. The rogue is currently the best and the worst at misdirection and ambush fighting, the cleric is currently the best and the worst at divine spellcasting and the wizard is both the best and the worst at arcane spellcasting.

The monk and the fighter are the only classes that actually have a comparison point at this time. When we see a sorcerer or warlock make another entrance on the scene we'll have a comparison point for the wizard. When the favoured soul or somesuch shows up, we'll have something to compare the cleric to and when a scout or assassin type character shows up we'll have something to compare the rogue to.


We simply have no information to base any claims about who's better or worse as an arcane caster any more than we did about who was better or worse at martial combat before the monk showed up. We can make some situational claims about the wizard vs the cleric and the rogue vs the fighter, but on the whole we can't say anything about who's the better arcane caster 'cause we only have one to look at.

Which is why there are feats that enable some minor spellcasting and there will be other classes that do magic. Really, what we've got are five classes, two of which are basically fighters. The rogue is currently the best and the worst at misdirection and ambush fighting, the cleric is currently the best and the worst at divine spellcasting and the wizard is both the best and the worst at arcane spellcasting.

Not true.  Currently, the wizard is the worst at fighting (with the cleric as second worst), while (most) clerics are worse at sneaking than wizards (but fighters are better at ambush fighting than either, since they can deal damage if they get into position).

The basic jobs of the fighter and rogue classes - fighting, sneaking/skills - are all things that the wizard and cleric can do worse than either of those specialists.  The basic jobs of the cleric and wizard classes - healing/buffing, blasting/utility-magic - are all things that no other class can do.

The only internally-consistent reason to deny fighters and rogues the ability to cast spells by default is if you think wizards should never be able to fight (and clerics should either not fight or should use magic to make themselves equivalent to full fighters), which does seem to be the direction they're heading with Next, but which is counter to their design in every edition prior to 4E.

(The design of anything prior to 3E was internally inconsistent - wizards and thieves and priests could act like weaker fighters, but fighters could not act like weaker wizards or thieves or priests.)

The metagame is not the game.

Not true.  Currently, the wizard is the worst at fighting (with the cleric as second worst), while (most) clerics are worse at sneaking than wizards (but fighters are better at ambush fighting than either, since they can deal damage if they get into position).

In a campaign setting that is a white room with a loot tray on one side and a big red button labelled "monster" that opens a hatch with a monster behind it to fight, I guess you're right. Anywhere else this is totally semantic nonsense.

 The basic jobs of the fighter and rogue classes - fighting, sneaking/skills - are all things that the wizard and cleric can do worse than either of those specialists.  The basic jobs of the cleric and wizard classes - healing/buffing, blasting/utility-magic - are all things that no other class can do.

And this is a problem how? In any practical sense, the casters aren't useful in the capacity of the non casters without their spells which means it's working as intended. It allows us to account for the fact that human beings in real life do try to sneak around and will occasionally punch people without training, but the guys with training are the only ones that are actually effective with it.
The only internally-consistent reason to deny fighters and rogues the ability to cast spells by default is if you think wizards should never be able to fight (and clerics should either not fight or should use magic to make themselves equivalent to full fighters), which does seem to be the direction they're heading with Next, but which is counter to their design in every edition prior to 4E.

Actually what you're seeing is the fact that good fantasy is based enough on reality that we can relate to it. Magic in the D&D sense is outside of the human experience in the real world, so a fantasy setting where every normal person is throwing around magic in the D&D sense is too far outside our assumptions about what's real for us to relate to it. Of course, that varies from person to person, but it's easier to make things more fanciful from the writing than it is to strip things back. I don't entirely understand why that is but it's something I've noticed over the years. As a campaign-specific decision I'd be all for letting everyone have spells but as a general rule of thumb I don't think so.

Really, a better way to do what you're describing is to allow everyone to be marginally aware of magic, so people tend to know when it's around and they might even be able to influence its ebb and flow through ability checks but the ability to actually initiate something totally new they need the training. So in this case if someone encounters a charmed person, they'll know something's wrong but they won't know what, exactly or where it's coming from. Some exposure will reveal that it's the person and some intervention on their part might lenghten or shorten the duration of the charm or maybe loosen the restrictions of the charmed dude's instructions. The stronger the caster, the harder it is to manipulate the spell instinctively. They could then hone their skills (take a feat) which would let them get into ritual casting or maybe learn a spell or two.


That way, you reflect the latent magical talent without actually giving them spells, same way you reflect latent fighting ability without actually giving them maneuvers.

(The design of anything prior to 3E was internally inconsistent - wizards and thieves and priests could act like weaker fighters, but fighters could not act like weaker wizards or thieves or priests.)

How was 3e consistent in this way? I don't recall fighters being able to cast spells, and feats augment default combat maneuvers available to all. A few things are feat only (whirlwind attack) but most of them work off of things that all characters do anyway. The skill use magic device gives some wiggle room here.


You know, this is possible in 4e.  It's called ritual casting.  And it doesn't break the game or anything.

To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."

Not to take a shot at anyone, but I find it interesting how many suggestions for Next are things that are already present in 4e and work well, but people either seem to be unaware of that or don't think it's the same thing.  



I was asking a freind of mine where the "fighters can't have nice things" outlook comes from, and his response (tongue in cheek) was that fighters are jocks, and roleplayers got picked on by jocks, so we want them to be inferior to us, the high int guy, in our game.

Tongue in cheek, but I shuddered anyway.
In a fantasy setting not everyone with have magic- that's just the way it is. In Avatar: The Last Airbender only the benders could learn to bend. You didn't just wake up one day and decide to learn bending. In Charmed the only way to gain magic if you didn't already have it was to make a deal with  a demon. Otherwise you were just human and relied on those magical if you fought in magical fights. 

I don't think that just because everyone has a base attack bonus that everyone should gain the ability to cast spells. Spells are specific to spell-casting classes. I do like the feats which enable a person to play a fighter who can heal himself or one who can perform minor cantrips. I don't agree with the taking away from what defines a spell-caster a spell-caster.
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)

I was asking a freind of mine where the "fighters can't have nice things" outlook comes from, and his response (tongue in cheek) was that fighters are jocks, and roleplayers got picked on by jocks, so we want them to be inferior to us, the high int guy, in our game.

Tongue in cheek, but I shuddered anyway.



This is actually quite true, or at least seems to be.
At some point in 3e, the Fighter was seen as such an underdog, so the inequality got highlighted.
Not a problem in 4e (since everyone has the same chassis), and 3e did give fighter more and more nice things all the way towards it's end, but then something like Bo9S was derided, despite the fact that certain styles, such as Diamond Mind and Iron Heart had NO even slightly supernatural maneuvers in them, and all Tiger Claw had, was, what, slightly longer jumps. 

In a fantasy setting not everyone with have magic- that's just the way it is. In Avatar: The Last Airbender only the benders could learn to bend. You didn't just wake up one day and decide to learn bending. In Charmed the only way to gain magic if you didn't already have it was to make a deal with  a demon. Otherwise you were just human and relied on those magical if you fought in magical fights. 

I don't think that just because everyone has a base attack bonus that everyone should gain the ability to cast spells. Spells are specific to spell-casting classes. I do like the feats which enable a person to play a fighter who can heal himself or one who can perform minor cantrips. I don't agree with the taking away from what defines a spell-caster a spell-caster.



This...seriously single-class mages cant fight and single class fighters cant cast...I understand your plea though I personally love the Red Mage/Gish style...luckily though multiclassing will be coming soon and I bet you these forums will be filled with all sorts of gish builds.

In short...no, if you want a hybrid multiclass
Just, make all magic rituals. Wizards then get get spell slots, and increased DCs.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

(The design of anything prior to 3E was internally inconsistent - wizards and thieves and priests could act like weaker fighters, but fighters could not act like weaker wizards or thieves or priests.)

How was 3e consistent in this way? I don't recall fighters being able to cast spells, and feats augment default combat maneuvers available to all. A few things are feat only (whirlwind attack) but most of them work off of things that all characters do anyway. The skill use magic device gives some wiggle room here.

It is, at the very least, debatable as to whether 3E wizards are supposed to engage in weapon combat, (or whether clerics made for inferior fighters).  Rogues were designed to be more offensively-skewed than fighters, but were intended to be fully equal in combat ability.

To someone who says that wizards are not supposed to fight with a weapon, it then becomes internally consistent as wizards only cast spells and only dedicated fighting-types are intended to engage in martial combat.  Prior to 3E, wizards had to rely on weapon attacks because they simply lacked the capacity to cast spells every round, and there were no cheap and easy rules to let them supplement their spell slots with wands or the like.

The metagame is not the game.

Anyhoo! Yes, D&D as a system has always sucked the big one.

Weird. I've always seen D&D as a system (and particularly 3E/3.5) to be about the most playable system I've come across. Very few fiddly percentile charts, lots of universal mechanics (d20 + modifier to resolve pretty much everything), just enough class features that each class has a reasonable list of variations from baseline without being overwhelming, enough abstraction that it doesn't catch on boring details while also providing enough detail to explain what's actually going on. Only a few minor quibbles that really grow out of proportion, and those are easily fixed once you know where to look.

The metagame is not the game.

I’ve removed content from this thread because using inappropriate language, or masking inappropriate language is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
 
The biggest thing I want to see with D&D or Next? a Piazo Golem on the spine of the book.
The biggest thing I want to see with D&D or Next? a Piazo Golem on the spine of the book.



you're so cool.
The biggest thing I want to see with D&D or Next? a Piazo Golem on the spine of the book.



you're so cool.



No, he's Brightmantle.

In all seriousness, there's no way Paizo can afford the entirety of D&D.  It's a thought, but impossible.

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
That's right kiddo, I am Brightmantle. And I was playing D&D when you were a gleam in your fathers eye. Wink I am the target audience for Next. lol
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world.  No, not the Illuminati (they retired).  I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing!  D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait!  The truth is out there!

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
 Loads his blulderbus and takes cover behind the Overturned computer desk- ' You'll never take me alive you buck toothed Hippo men! I got 3 copies of TSR book ever printed and I'm not afraid to join the resistance! The rebellion will not be televised!" -Pulls pin on granade with teeth.
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world.  No, not the Illuminati (they retired).  I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing!  D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait!  The truth is out there!



I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world.  No, not the Illuminati (they retired).  I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing!  D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait!  The truth is out there!



I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.



Yeah, I'm messing around.  I want D&D Next to give something to each type of player.  If we keep being constructive, there's still hope for that.

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world.  No, not the Illuminati (they retired).  I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing!  D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait!  The truth is out there!



I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.



Thats the spin they are putting out.

Based on what has been prodiced to this point that seems to be only spin.

Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world.  No, not the Illuminati (they retired).  I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing!  D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait!  The truth is out there!



I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.

Hey Doc. I got a bite, fish on!

To Failed Legend: Appropriate name for a Next playtester Btw.It supposed to be. And that would be nice but if that's the case why is there limited to no post 3e influence within it? Why are the last editions players being ignored?  Why is Wotc using a 3.5 platform for a retro clone? Why did a over 100 page thread with over 20,000 views on 4e get entirely ignored by the company? They want to ignore them and see them go away - to the back of the bus that's why. This game isn't using the best of every edition of D&D to be great. This Game is using the legacy of D&D's past to sell a retro clone of a mix of Skills and powers with 3.5. with nerfed wizards and a simplified skill system. This isn't reto enough to intrest one group(The osr/ Tsr movement) or innovative enough to keep the current group( The new school 4e. movement). In fact as far as I'm concerned this game is equal to a bowel movement..
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world.  No, not the Illuminati (they retired).  I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing!  D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait!  The truth is out there!



I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.



Yeah, I'm messing around.  I want D&D Next to give something to each type of player.  If we keep being constructive, there's still hope for that.



I normally don't get involved into this pre-beta kind of stuff but me and my group are trying to play/give input as much as possible because we all like things from all the editions which we wish were all smashed together into a diamond of a game and were hoping 5e is that diamond

Also I hate to be sappy but the amount of vitriol thrown around in the edition wars is very sad...especially at 4e and I hope this does unite at least the majority under a single rule set.

The keystone of this hope of course is if they can pull of the modularity so everyone can easily adjust to their groups play style. Personally I don't thin it should be called 5e though because that implies a new edition just like any before this is more of a compilation...personally I like 40th Annivesary Edition.

One example focusing on modularity is prestige classes...I personally dislike the way they function (they halt your classes progression and require pre-planning) but I know others swear by them so no reason not to add them. Personally I'd prefer something like 2e Kits or 4e PP/EDs except they can be taken at any time assuming the pre-reqs are met (ie. Dragon slayer has to slay a dragon...than can further increase the bonuses he gets from his "kit, expereince,tile,w/e" but killing older more powerful dragons) this is where modularity comes in basically the PHB would have the various ways to ?level? your character...a few examples being Dual-Classing (a-la 2e), Multi-classing (a-la 3e), Kits/PP/EDs (a-la 2e & 4e), Hybrid/Gestalts (3e,4e) for the core 4 classes (and w/e the core races are) than as they release more classes and races those books would have options for the above except for the classes/races contained within the book...know what I mean?
You see I also hate edition warring. In fact I am sworn to end it. That's the point. What's currently taking place withn the D&D Next playtest does little to effect the onslaught of edition bias as you yourself have seen and read. There has to be some muti edition cross gaming cultural give and take for the goal of Next to be a succsess. That is what I'm not seeing so far. And let me tell you I am not alone there.
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world.  No, not the Illuminati (they retired).  I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing!  D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait!  The truth is out there!



I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.



Thats the spin they are putting out.

Based on what has been prodiced to this point that seems to be only spin.


This is what I'm talking about.
@Bright: To clarify I love 4e I haven't played 3e in forever and miss multi-classing and a few things from older editions as well (although I really only played those in digital game form, no THACO though...THACO was dumb) right now the playtets had really just begun the point where I'm hoping to see alot of modularity (see above and alternative spell casting) has yet to arrive but I love the flexibility of the cleric domains and the wizard traditions...the skill dice system I love...I wish they would bring back the reflex/will/fort system as opposed to eveyrthing hits AC and spellcasters have 2 worry about DCs AND spell attck..its annoying but I won't abandon my feedback until it's officially released than I'll make my desicion

Back to 4e though as much as I love it, there's one huge flaw its FAR to restircting my ideal 5e is a mix of 3e and 4e with a little 1/2e sprinkled throughout and of course some new ideas (I love {dis}advantage much easier than having to keep track of 30 different +1 and 2s)
@Bright: To clarify I love 4e I haven't played 3e in forever and miss multi-classing and a few things from older editions as well (although I really only played those in digital game form, no THACO though...THACO was dumb) right now the playtets had really just begun the point where I'm hoping to see alot of modularity (see above and alternative spell casting) has yet to arrive but I love the flexibility of the cleric domains and the wizard traditions...the skill dice system I love...I wish they would bring back the reflex/will/fort system as opposed to eveyrthing hits AC and spellcasters have 2 worry about DCs AND spell attck..its annoying but I won't abandon my feedback until it's officially released than I'll make my desicion

Back to 4e though as much as I love it, there's one huge flaw its FAR to restircting my ideal 5e is a mix of 3e and 4e with a little 1/2e sprinkled throughout and of course some new ideas (I love {dis}advantage much easier than having to keep track of 30 different +1 and 2s)

if you take all of what you cited and add Daily's and powers, you basically have Pathfinder with an even more simple skill system, Feat taxes and all bro. These are not exclusive to Wotc's ideas or design. This thing does not encorperate the best rules from each system or even their concepts. One whole group isn't being heard. D&D Next could be better than this.
I am not willing to see a whole group of fans just kicked to the curb, again. that's what I see Wotc as doing. This happened to me in the 1990's. It sucks and it isn't right.
I am not a big enough fan boy of the franchise name to lie down and buy another product that exiles a whole group of the fanbase annexing them as ner do wells so we can win back fans that hate this company in the first place. I am the player who's been playing for 25 years and left Wotc because of their buisness practices. I don't care if this game caters to my playstlye perfectly. If it doesn't include the input of my brethren, even input I don't agree with: I'm not buying this. thus far it's double talk and it's nine months of yes manning and no show.
Meh. This seems like a classless system. Although I might be a fan in a different scenario it's not what I want to see from D&D Next. Currently I want to see a balance brought to the martial classes. Mainly setting a 3d6 limit on MDD and instead giving out some encounter powers to be gained (I like the name advanced maneuvers). This brings back some familiarity from 4th edition.
I am not a big enough fan boy of the franchise name to lie down and buy another product that exiles a whole group of the fanbase annexing them as ner do wells so we can win back fans that hate this company in the first place. I am the player who's been playing for 25 years and left Wotc because of their buisness practices. I don't care if this game caters to my playstlye perfectly. If it doesn't include the input of my brethren, even input I don't agree with: I'm not buying this. thus far it's double talk and it's nine months of yes manning and no show.




My take -I'm not interested in the game as it stands now and not hopeful based on their comments/direction---- BUT there's always the chance they might put out something worthwhile eventually.

Regardless of whether wotc gives me what I want there's plenty of other fish in the sea and some of them look quite tasty (13th age from what I've seen for instance looks RIGHT up my alley)

Keep ya head up Bright and  keep them d20's rolling
What tears it for me is Wotc employees get on to Tell people who are unhappy to stop. Rather than listen to them. Look at What Trevor did on the legends and lore update. The company has no respect for nor care for what it's fans truly feel is the right direction.  
I am not a big enough fan boy of the franchise name to lie down and buy another product that exiles a whole group of the fanbase annexing them as ner do wells so we can win back fans that hate this company in the first place. I am the player who's been playing for 25 years and left Wotc because of their buisness practices. I don't care if this game caters to my playstlye perfectly. If it doesn't include the input of my brethren, even input I don't agree with: I'm not buying this. thus far it's double talk and it's nine months of yes manning and no show.




My take -I'm not interested in the game as it stands now and not hopeful based on their comments/direction---- BUT there's always the chance they might put out something worthwhile eventually.

Regardless of whether wotc gives me what I want there's plenty of other fish in the sea and some of them look quite tasty (13th age from what I've seen for instance looks RIGHT up my alley)

Keep ya head up Bright and  keep them d20's rolling

Right. Why did I say I want D&D to go to Piazo? It's not because of their rules system, Wotc owns that. It's because of their attitude and buisness practices. They love and support their fans. Wotc craps on us.
I am not a big enough fan boy of the franchise name to lie down and buy another product that exiles a whole group of the fanbase annexing them as ner do wells so we can win back fans that hate this company in the first place. I am the player who's been playing for 25 years and left Wotc because of their buisness practices. I don't care if this game caters to my playstlye perfectly. If it doesn't include the input of my brethren, even input I don't agree with: I'm not buying this. thus far it's double talk and it's nine months of yes manning and no show.




My take -I'm not interested in the game as it stands now and not hopeful based on their comments/direction---- BUT there's always the chance they might put out something worthwhile eventually.

Regardless of whether wotc gives me what I want there's plenty of other fish in the sea and some of them look quite tasty (13th age from what I've seen for instance looks RIGHT up my alley)

Keep ya head up Bright and  keep them d20's rolling

Right. Why did I say I want D&D to go to Piazo? It's not because of their rules system, Wotc owns that. It's because of their attitude and buisness practices. They love and support their fans. Wotc craps on us.




Heh I was thinking something along the lines of WOTC/Hasbro is controlled by suits while Paizo is controlled by gamers.  I had seen something like that from some insiders previously on other boards and that basically explains to me the relative success of the 2 companies at this junction.

Not to say that I like Pathfinders system - I don't as it's too reminiscent of 3.x but MAN do those folks understand how to support their system (unlike wotc/hasbro) 
He gets it. Piazo cares and they listen to their fans. They remind me of when I used to write into Dragon magazine BITD and Roger E. Moore would correspond with me within Dragon magazine. They love their fans the way Tsr used to.

I am not a big enough fan boy of the franchise name to lie down and buy another product that exiles a whole group of the fanbase annexing them as ner do wells so we can win back fans that hate this company in the first place. I am the player who's been playing for 25 years and left Wotc because of their buisness practices. I don't care if this game caters to my playstlye perfectly. If it doesn't include the input of my brethren, even input I don't agree with: I'm not buying this. thus far it's double talk and it's nine months of yes manning and no show.

The first part of the sentiment here is awesome and I totally agree. Ethically, a company should recognise that they have fans who want things and at least acknowledge them in some way. It also makes them money, so really it's in everyone's best interest.

However, I am really only interested in my own fun and the fun of my friends and while I think the company should behave in such a way that caters to their fans (or at the very least, doesn't leave some of their fans with nothing to show for their years of goodwill), I don't feel that so strongly that I won't buy something I find fun for the sake of folks I don't know, don't play with, and probably won't play with.


I don't really need the game to be anything but a ttrpg that is fun. It can resemble whatever edition or none, though there are some conventions that I assume when I see a D&D label on something so that's the real challenge.

Sign In to post comments