D&DN is not for me... and that's OK

Over the course of this playtest, it has become increasingly obvious that this new edition of D&D is not the one for me. Much of the new direction seems like moving backwards to me, in terms of game design. Several of the new features made me say, "Why are they doing it this way? Fourth edition did it so much better." It is unlikely that I will purchase the books for the new edition (but hey, we never know for sure until it's released).

But that's OK.

I've been thinking about it some more recently, and I've come to realize that 4E suits my storytelling needs just fine. I don't need a new edition, but others might. There are plenty of people who wanted something that 4E couldn't easily offer, and maybe D&DN is for them. It would, after all, be pretty selfish for me to believe that EVERY edition of D&D should be tailored to my specific preferences, when there's already a version that almost is.

Here's the news that sparked this train of thought:

No Warlord? No Novacat. The warlord is easily, far and away my favorite class in any edition of D&D (to the point where I've ALMOST not played anything else), and they've axed it in a design move that I could never agree with. It is primarily for this reason that I'm confident that D&DN will not speak to me. That said, I know a lot of people had a problem with the warlord, and what it represented with relation to hit points. So now I have my edition with a warlord, and they will have theirs without it.

All of the other issues I have with the system boil down to a similar line of reasoning: Some game element or design philosophy present in 4E is reversed in D&DN, so it makes the game less appealing to me, but more appealing to others. So now I withdraw from attempting to persuade the designers to make the game as I want it, because clearly, this is not a game for me. It is, however, still D&D at its core, and the implications of that fact allow us as a community to embrace it, whether it's our game or not. There will be stories, quirks, flaws, and triumphs just as there has been in any version of the game, and these are the things that unite us, not the mechanics.

TLDR: I'm happy with 4E, and D&DN doesn't detract from that happiness. If a new edition of D&D can bring new players into the community, or bring back old players, then it's objectively a good thing, even if I never play it.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

You have reached the most advanced stage of grief. The progression goes: denial; anger; bargaining; depression; and acceptance.

Personally, I'm still mired in anger/bargaining. But I am glad for you. 

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

Y'know, at the beginning of the playtest, I would have thought that this would be grief. But it's really not. It's almost a relief, knowing that I don't have to be concerned about the direction of this new game.

Sure, it's a little sad that no new content will be published for my game, but there's already way more than I'm likely to ever use anyways, and most of the fun for me is cooking up my own content.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

A very mature position to take.

One thing is certain.  It's unlikely any edition is the last.  

You do now though understand how someone has felt every single edition release.  Someone didn't like the new versiona nd preferred the old one.

I have yet to experience that feeling.  I only came to dislike 4e after playing it extensively so I didn't experience the looming advent of an edition I do not like.  

And I am being serious in saying this when I say it.  No snark at all intended.   But I do have some 4e books I'd be glad to sell to you or anyone in your group for a reasonable price.  I will likely keep the core 3 just to keep my D&D edition sets complete.   

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I went through this in December for other reasons. Then I invested in Pathfinder! I am now in "this doesn't bother me anymore" mode. I feel I made the right decision. Can I sugjest you try 13th Age if you want a new game? If not; game on with 4e. I have been playing AD&D for 25 years happily. I'll likely never abandon TSR era D&D. Either way- I feel for you O.p.
Next does however speak to me. It whispers " Don't waste your money on me". And I am glad I heard it.
Retrogaming is in.  I would play free rather than spend money on retrogaming, tho.

I look forward to more 5E playtests.  Staying tuned in at least. 

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

I look forward to more 5E playtests.  Staying tuned in at least. 


As am I. I remain cautiously optimistic about D&DN, and when it's completed and released, I will be eager to check it out for myself. As a gamer, and as a hobbyist game designer, I can't ignore D&DN and what it represents, or what it brings to the RPG table. Even if I don't prefer the system as a whole, I would be absolutely shocked if it doesn't have anything that fits in my playgroup. Even just the idea of Advantage and Disadvantage is something I've been considering house-ruling into my campaigns.

It would be an act of deliberate ignorance to not stay tuned into D&DN's progress, no matter what position you take, or what your preferred edition is.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

I have come to the same conclusion, and in doing so I have actually got more into 4th Edition. Now I am working on converting Pathfinder Reign of Winter to 4th Edition - combining a ruleset I like with the storytelling of Paizo. It has been real fun. It has also forced me to move into actual game design - converting monsters, magic items, powers and feats to 4th Edition. If I find good parts in the DnD Next it will be easy to lift it over to 4th Edition. With all the people that loves 4th Edition out there I still believe it can be a vibrant community.

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

/Myrhdraak
I look forward to more 5E playtests.  Staying tuned in at least. 


As am I. I remain cautiously optimistic about D&DN, and when it's completed and released, I will be eager to check it out for myself. As a gamer, and as a hobbyist game designer, I can't ignore D&DN and what it represents, or what it brings to the RPG table. Even if I don't prefer the system as a whole, I would be absolutely shocked if it doesn't have anything that fits in my playgroup. Even just the idea of Advantage and Disadvantage is something I've been considering house-ruling into my campaigns.

It would be an act of deliberate ignorance to not stay tuned into D&DN's progress, no matter what position you take, or what your preferred edition is.



I agree with your attitude here.  It's my approach to 4e too.   No system lacks any merit if you look hard enough.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

To me, 5e is like an improve version of 3.5e. So there no moving back, just moving forward.

 
What happened to uniting all players? What happened to modules and options? Seriously, what happeend?


They haven't yet tried.  No, really, they have not yet tried to unite the editions and provide modules and options to do so in a playtest packet. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
What is missing for the 1e/2e guys Phoenix?   I am always curious for your view point on the game.

I'm assuming you'd drop skills and feats.   But what about 5e makes it totally not viable as an alternative for 1e/2e people?  or you in particular? 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I see Mand12's point that they haven't yet tried. That feels correct.

But I'm getting a little fatigued waiting for it. And debating N over and over - just takes the wind right out of me.

Meanwhile we've been playing 4E (main campaign) and side-trekking with DW & 13A.

I want to mash those 3 games together and play that.

We're still playtesting Next. It's got a few real gems. But it has a tendency, it seems to me, of kicking the things I like about 4E in the teeth and opening the floodgates to the stuff I hate about 3E.

Why do I keep waiting though? What am I holding out for?

Where's the D&D I WANT to play?
What happened to uniting all players? What happened to modules and options? Seriously, what happeend?


They haven't yet tried.  No, really, they have not yet tried to unite the editions and provide modules and options to do so in a playtest packet. 



I suppose (which is why I'm still here), but I'm not holding my breath.


Considering that we're over a year into the development and it's still in a very early stage, I'd recommend breathing in the interim.

But seriously, people need to understand just how early they let us peek behind the curtain.  I'm quite sure that almost everyone posting in this thread doesn't fully appreciate just how big of a deal it was that we were involved at the stage we were, how different this is from basically any other game design process of even remotely the same scale.  Really, this is an endeavor that is not playing by the normal rules, and judging it on those rules will necessarily have it come up short.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
5e doesnt capture the classic feel, especially when it comes to classes. Individual initiative doesnt capture the classic AD&D or OD&D combat feel. People say 4e PCs are complicated to make, well 5e is almost as bad, they just never bothered to make a 4e PC by hand. You have some classic spells but almost all of them are nerfed. The danger of low level play is gone. Hell, everything about it has been changed. Starting HP, XP progression, class features, nothing really resembles classic editions. So if you are a hardcore classic edition player, 5e looks like a freaking nightmare. To me, the biggest offenders are the classes. Words cannot express how crappy I think 5es classes are. Every one of them is a mess of bizarre compromises and bad ideas.
5e doesnt capture the classic feel, especially when it comes to classes. Individual initiative doesnt capture the classic AD&D or OD&D combat feel. People say 4e PCs are complicated to make, well 5e is almost as bad, they just never bothered to make a 4e PC by hand. You have some classic spells but almost all of them are nerfed. The danger of low level play is gone. Hell, everything about it has been changed. Starting HP, XP progression, class features, nothing really resembles classic editions. So if you are a hardcore classic edition player, 5e looks like a freaking nightmare. To me, the biggest offenders are the classes. Words cannot express how crappy I think 5es classes are. Every one of them is a mess of bizarre compromises and bad ideas.



I'm not sure because I haven't been playtesting of late.  But I might concede the lethality is too low argument only because that seems to be their knee jerk reaction.

I'd still like to hear Phoenix's answer because I know your a 4e'er Frothsof.   But good food for thought despite that.   

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

5e doesnt capture the classic feel, especially when it comes to classes. Individual initiative doesnt capture the classic AD&D or OD&D combat feel. People say 4e PCs are complicated to make, well 5e is almost as bad, they just never bothered to make a 4e PC by hand. You have some classic spells but almost all of them are nerfed. The danger of low level play is gone. Hell, everything about it has been changed. Starting HP, XP progression, class features, nothing really resembles classic editions. So if you are a hardcore classic edition player, 5e looks like a freaking nightmare. To me, the biggest offenders are the classes. Words cannot express how crappy I think 5es classes are. Every one of them is a mess of bizarre compromises and bad ideas.



I'm not sure because I haven't been playtesting of late.  But I might concede the lethality is too low argument only because that seems to be their knee jerk reaction.

I'd still like to hear Phoenix's answer because I know your a 4e'er Frothsof.   But good food for thought despite that.   



Well, I play and DM both, but I can tell the difference between them. I dont think 5e captures a classic feel or a 4e feel. But I never played 3x and people seem to suggest it is more like 3rd edition than any other.


I have talked to many 'old schoolers' who are quite happy with the direction its going, so I don't want to claim representation over all of any group. Anything I post is just the couple dozen of us that I play with, but it seems to be frequently echoed across various forums. I'm also not totally dissatisfied. There are a number of good features. It's just the overall feel and direction that are making me feel like it may be a lost cause.





That's the category I fall into. I played the 1983 version of the Red Box and then 2e after that and I'm really enjoying Next so far. There are obviously things that need changed/tweaked, but I'm happy with the direction it's heading, and the 2 groups I'm currently DMing for (that include both pre 3rd edition players and also some newbies) are all really enjoying it.
Is this a thinly veiled Warlord thread?
I can say I've been a general fan of D&D, but I was never too obsessed with the "feel" of the game. Each edition has had its advantages, and each edition seems to have improved over the previous in one critical aspect: Each had more interesting and meaningful decisions available to the player.

That said, I find almost nothing appealing about the playtest so far. It's a severe step back as far as presenting meaningful and interesting decisions to players. It's not like everything is terrible, but this playtest lacks in any real innovation.

When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin. My players have fun but that's pretty much 100% my doing. So far the playtest tools and material resemble something I could scamble together in five minutes for the purpose of demonstrating a rough idea of what D&D roleplaying is like.

"Roll that d20! Did you hit the random number I just made up? Great! I'll make something else up now or maybe you should roll some more dice for damage."

There's nothing terrible about that, but I don't see why I would spend money on it either. Basically, I want something with innovation and foresight and this playtest has spent the last year just blindly scribbling. Consequently, I just pop my head in here occasionally to see if anything has actually changed.
Is this a thinly veiled Warlord thread?


It was inspired by the warlord (get it? "inspired"... ahem), but it's not about that. There are many other aspects of the system that inform me that the designers are not building a game for me, but rather for others. The dropping of the warlord is simply one more thing that speaks to how the designers are not trying to recapture the feel of 4E. They are instead trying to build something new.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

The dropping of the warlord is simply one more thing that speaks to how the designers are not trying to recapture the feel of 4E.




Of course not (for obvious reasons), 5th Ed will not be anything like a 4.5.

Though a decent 4.5 would be nice too (I have sort of mangled one, removed the 1/2 level malarkey and some other tweaks). 
The dropping of the warlord is simply one more thing that speaks to how the designers are not trying to recapture the feel of 4E.

Of course not (for obvious reasons), 5th Ed will not be anything like a 4.5.

Warlord will be back.  But, like everything else recycled from 4E, it's going to be thinly obfuscated by barely-fitting label from the 2E or 3E era.

Thanks Pheonix.   I'm not 100% sure I got exactly what you didn't like.  I'm thinking it is the kind of thing that maybe is hard to capture even if your only concession is d20.   How do you feel about the various retroclones?  What about C&C? (Castles and Crusades).


I liked 3e when it began and I enjoyed it to the completion of my campaign.  With hindsight though, there seems to be way to many options and way to many rules for everything.  I'm longing for going back to DM's using judgment and there being far fewer rules.   So maybe I'm at 2.5e.   I do like d20 though and roll high.   I'm for the DMG teaching DM's how to DM and run a game effectively and use wise judgment.   I'm for more wonder in magic items and less systematization.



 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

The dropping of the warlord is simply one more thing that speaks to how the designers are not trying to recapture the feel of 4E.

Of course not (for obvious reasons), 5th Ed will not be anything like a 4.5.

Warlord will be back.  But, like everything else recycled from 4E, it's going to be thinly obfuscated by barely-fitting label from the 2E or 3E era.




I wasn't talking about the Warlord (we know they will be in, one way or another), I was talking about 5th Ed in general not being 4.5, at all.

When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin. My players have fun but that's pretty much 100% my doing.






Were you hoping the game run itself? Isn't this part of being a DM?
There got to be somebody controlling the NPCs, monsters, and make sure the game
runs smoothly since usually DMs have more experiences. 

What do you want from this playtest as a DM?


When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin. My players have fun but that's pretty much 100% my doing.






Where you hoping the game run itself? Isn't this part of being a DM?
There got to be somebody controlling the NPCs, monsters, and make sure the game
runs smoothly since usually DMs have more experiences. 

What do you want from this playtest as a DM?




Mischaracterizing my complaint doesn't engender trust or faciliate communication. What I mean by "100% my doing" is that the players would get the exact same experience if I had thrown the rules in the trash and only pretended we were playtesting a new edition of D&D. That means that D&DNext isn't actually bringing anything to the table. If I spend time and money on a system I want it to give me something that will make that experience better, otherwise what's the point?
It's almost a relief, knowing that I don't have to be concerned about the direction of this new game.



This is the mindset I've had for the last 13 years or so.
3E was barely a blip on my radar. I wasn't surprised that it only lasted about 3 years before 3.5 took over. At that point, as I was not even paying attention to the direction WotC took D&D anymore. When the first sneak-peeks of 4E showed up, I rolled my eyes and said, "Ah...trying it again, eh?". I followed it's build-up with passive interest, still more than content to run 1E and 2E. When 4E was released, I bought it. I played it quite regularly, and still do in a PbP capacity. When 5E was announced, I did more eye-rolling, and am still following it with passive interest...and am still more than content to keep running 1E and 2E. If 5E ends up being awesome, then I'll play it and run it. If it doesn't, it's not a big deal in the slightest. For that matter, if it bombs and the brand gets shelved, it won't affect me at all. I've got enough old-E material to keep me rolling dice for decades to come.

"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
I can say I've been a general fan of D&D, but I was never too obsessed with the "feel" of the game. Each edition has had its advantages, and each edition seems to have improved over the previous in one critical aspect: Each had more interesting and meaningful decisions available to the player.

That said, I find almost nothing appealing about the playtest so far. It's a severe step back as far as presenting meaningful and interesting decisions to players. It's not like everything is terrible, but this playtest lacks in any real innovation.

When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin. My players have fun but that's pretty much 100% my doing. So far the playtest tools and material resemble something I could scamble together in five minutes for the purpose of demonstrating a rough idea of what D&D roleplaying is like.

"Roll that d20! Did you hit the random number I just made up? Great! I'll make something else up now or maybe you should roll some more dice for damage."

There's nothing terrible about that, but I don't see why I would spend money on it either. Basically, I want something with innovation and foresight and this playtest has spent the last year just blindly scribbling. Consequently, I just pop my head in here occasionally to see if anything has actually changed.




frankly that's why I enjoy the game.  it gets the hell out of the way.  I know I can evaluate in my own head how difficult something seems give a number within this bound and keep going.

To be fair I'm not 100% sure that wizards is going to charge for the core rules any more than pazio charges for pathfinder's core rules.  Sure you can buy the book if you like having it but 100% of the rules are online for free.

If I had to guess where wizards was gunna hope to gain its money it is in adventure materials, and organized play events.  If you are paying attention at all to the con events they are testing out, like the upcoming Gen Con event, or the DM competition at PAX East they are really stepping up their game on making organized play wicked interesting.  At pax east they had chris perkins and the other guy that wrote the adventure rolling around interacting with all the different tables offering them unique experiences and a portion of that adventure really only works at organized play events.  In the Gen Con game it would seem you need to have 15 tables playing concurrently in order to keep the game going correctly.  They are really stepping up the unique design of organized play events to make them more of a thing people want to get into.  Heck there was a thread in this very forum of someone complaining because they couldn't get into the gen con event because it filled up so fast.  Like I'll say this right out: if they were doing a paid event here in my city for a weekend where I got to play in that 15 table event they are doing at Gen Con...I'd pay for it.  I mean not like alot but if it cost the same as three day PAX badge...i'd consider it at least.  3/4ths of a PAX badge and I'd do it.

On top of that they are making the game very hackable to work with older edition materials so that I could buy a reprint of temple of elemental evil and convert it on the fly (wicked easy to go from 2nd ed to 5th by the by even if you have never palyed 2nd and just know its mechanics).  No new work to pay for but still get people buying it.  I just continue to have this inkling that they are going to do a very similar thing to what pazio has done with pathfinder, and I can't blame them at all for doing that.  Maybe I'm the only one getting this whole vibe though.
On top of that they are making the game very hackable to work with older edition materials so that I could buy a reprint of temple of elemental evil and convert it on the fly (wicked easy to go from 2nd ed to 5th by the by even if you have never palyed 2nd and just know its mechanics).




Yes, one of my favourite parts of 5th Ed is ease of converting previous edition material (races, classes, spells, monsters, etc).
Here is an anecdote that partly demonstrates what I mean when I say 5e does not capture the feel of classic editions OR 4e. So we were testing 5e and most every combat was basically me forced to spam a boring, sorry "At-Will", except when I got momentarily excited to use a spell, Cause Fear....but when I used it, come to find out all the classic magic of it has been taken away and "frightened" is an actual codified condition Yell.

So the engaging complexity of 4e combat isnt there, and neither is the loose, subjective feel of magic in classic D&D. So in that example 5e is the absolute worst of all worlds. Boring simple combat on one hand, imagination-gutting magic-nerfing on the other.

As far as edition conversions, that has always been easy, even in 4e, so I cant really act like that is any kind of feature or pull at all. Besides, why even convert it when you can play 1e or 2e or whatever? They are all better than 5e anyway, no need to convert. Regardless, I dont think that is their best marketing angle. "You, YES YOU can do something youve been able to do for decades! Buy it now!"
@Sleeps: Better written adventures and events are great, but they didn't need to make a shakier and less sophisticated system just to do it. There's basically no benefit yet to the actual playtest rules and material. Your eyeballed numbers and improvised rulings are probably better than the majority of what they have already.

Most events rely on pregens and don't require any investment in the product and it's not like owning the books will help you bring home those carefully planned experiences.  Plus, if you mostly end up just reusing the adventure material from older editions, then what exactly are you buying with this system besides the D&D label?

Basically, there's no reason they couldn't design adventures and events to support a system that gets out of the way, has reliable and somewhat balanced results, and faciliates interesting player decisions. The current material doesn't really succeed at that.

P.S. If you're actually in Gen Con, I've got three events playtesting my own products.  The first seems to be sold out, but there're still tickets for the Friday evening and Saturday afternoon events. I hope some of you can check it out.


So the engaging complexity of 4e combat isnt there, and neither is the loose, subjective feel of magic in classic D&D. So in that example 5e is the absolute worst of all worlds. Boring simple combat on one hand, imagination-gutting magic-nerfing on the other.


Well....when you try to please all of the people all of the time you end up with a very boring vanilla system.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
@Sleeps: Better written adventures and events are great, but they didn't need to make a shakier and less sophisticated system just to do it. There's basically no benefit yet to the actual playtest rules and material. Your eyeballed numbers and improvised rulings are probably better than the majority of what they have already.

Most events rely on pregens and don't require any investment in the product and it's not like owning the books will help you bring home those carefully planned experiences.  Plus, if you mostly end up just reusing the adventure material from older editions, then what exactly are you buying with this system besides the D&D label?

Basically, there's no reason they couldn't design adventures and events to support a system that gets out of the way, has reliable and somewhat balanced results, and faciliates interesting player decisions. The current material doesn't really succeed at that.

P.S. If you're actually in Gen Con, I've got three events playtesting my own products.  The first seems to be sold out, but there're still tickets for the Friday evening and Saturday afternoon events. I hope some of you can check it out.




Gen Con is sadly out of my range. Both physically and monitarily I can really only afford 1 con weekend a year, and I can only really afford it because the con is in my own back yard.
If I spend time and money on a system I want it to give me something that will make that experience better, otherwise what's the point?



If you don't like the system, don't waste time and money on it. 
If you do like the system, then give it all you got. 

I really don't know what you want, I mean there only so much you can get from a playtest. 





So in that example 5e is the absolute worst of all worlds. Boring simple combat on one hand, imagination-gutting magic-nerfing on the other. 




I am finding it just delightful (mass breath of fresh air).
Let me begin by saying I rarely ever share my own opinions on these boards as I am for next being a game for all Players. However, just this once I'll make an exception. I do this in an effort to explain how some old schoolers might not like Next as of now. Being a devoted Grognard and  long time player of AD&D I'd like to speak to some reasons why next doesn't appeal to me and my group.

1. Classes and feats. I feel as if next's classes are lacking. Feats are dumbed down rather than fun and exciting when compared to 3.75 I.E. P.F. It has no identity of it's own. Give me a better list of feats and feat trees or better yet: kill them entirely. Choose to develope feats and ad options or cut them. Then focus on class design. They need reworking. Mundane is the word I'd use to describe the next classes. Man I would love the idea of a workable proficiency system and a quantifier for what my character can and can't do according to my choices. Example- fighter can use anything he's just auto skilled, big turn off for me. AD&D had detail and depth. this seems cookie cutter. I miss the levels of skill represented by Weapon mastery rules. At least Pathfinder has feats that represent this like vital strike. No wonder fighter types are boring to me. I just get x thrown at me. it's like D&D auto tune. Pick a vague background and you get x. There ya go. Give me control via proficiencies or a feat tree that is well developed. Then make backgrounds have depth if in use ala' the Complete series handbooks.

2. The leathality just isn't enough to make 5e. a gritty game in comparison to AD&D. Monsters are weaksauce and cold- black and white you might say rather than having any substance. A lowered danger level equals boring to my players. Walking on bags of H.P. doesn't make for fun play for old schoolers.

3. We use the d20 slow initiative, slow 3e combat grind vs a simple group AD&D or individual option. More to calculate even without weapon speed. Three different monsters +4 players equals 7 initiative numbers to track across over 20 initiative possiblities. Needless book keeping to grind down combat. I keep combat charted as my players are like "dude let me know when I go.. yawn". There's no reason to do this book keeping if weapon speed isn't calculated and spells casting time doesn't mean much. Man in AD&D we roll a d6 once per round and initiative matters each round. weapon speed comes up on ties. The end. This represents the chaotic nature of combat well IMO. It's also fast.

4. I absolutely hate bounded accuracy. lame concept imo. I don't want to be a huge bag of h.p.'s still fighting  orcs at level 12. I want to advance in scope, skill and power. This advancement to me has never been an illusion. An orc is a mook. A earth elemental is a foe for a high level character. +10 over 20 levels of play doesn't appeal to me in the least. Actual math does not equal to an illusion of advancement. Nor to reward. My 1st edition fighter can swing once per level of his experience above and beyond his regular attacks at orcs. In next they nickle and dime me- making a mook fight long and drawn out and extra boring. if I have to do math I'd prefer to do it here( BAB) rather than needless initiative wrangling that says a greatsword is just the same as a dagger in speed. from an AD&D pov. This makes no sense.

5. The next game design feels like a poor effort to dumb down 3e and add auto self healing- H.D. healing needs to go. This would increase the leathality a bit. Dang, choose a direction- back into the past to a 3e design entirely or AD&D - or forward to a new school design. This feels sadly as if it has no identity. I do not like how h.d. healing is represented as written. I would drop it entirely.

6. The so called modular approach of next still leaves alot of playstyles out in the cold. As of yet we have seen no modules to fulfil the need to reconcile our playstyles into one game we can play together. What next does do to represent an AD&D style of play AD&D does'nt do better? Why would I play what does badly- what my game of choice does well? Sorry, my finances are hard earned- to hard to buy a game that doesn't cut the mustard for anyone out of the box. It's not worth me learning a system very few are going to be happy with right off at the get go. My group has been together for 15 years, better to rock the system we like. Honsetly-If I want to include a 4e player to my game and adjust for his playstyle at my table Next currently won't support this. It's not anymore inclusive than AD&D.

7. I wont even get into spells-  They need reworking, nuff said.

I cannot see a valid reason to extensively playtest what I see as "no fun" for a couple of years when I can rather be having a great time playing what I do like with my group. Life is to short for all that. The hell with it. I'll download, read, wait and see. "If" I feel like it. I wasted a year of my life on this crap. Naturally I'll not post about it if I lose intrest.
 
Now I do not not post this with the assumption of the one true wayism frame of mind or badwrongfun toward those who disagree with my playstyle. I think your playstyle choice is just as valid as any other. I made this post not to edition war. I simply am trying to explain why my group requested that I return to AD&D and run a P.F. game for them rather than force Next on them anymore. I see how Pheonix can write that it doesn't appeal to his old school group. Ditto.  
I guess I should speak to advantage- (dis). I think it is an ultra swingy mechanic and belongs on the cutting room floor. Give me static bonuses instead. Thanks.
To me, 5e is like an improve version of 3.5e. So there no moving back, just moving forward.

 



I think it's important to keep in mind that, if this is still true when Next releases (and I think I agree that it is true at the moment) it is not just the 4th Edition fans that will not buy.

All the old AD&D and 2nd Edition grognards like me won't be buying either.

And given that Pathfinder seems to have a firm grip on many of the 3rd Edition and 3.5 fans that leaves very, very few D&D players who will actually be buying this new edition.   
To me, 5e is like an improve version of 3.5e. So there no moving back, just moving forward.

 



I think it's important to keep in mind that, if this is still true when Next releases (and I think I agree that it is true at the moment) it is not just the 4th Edition fans that will not buy.

All the old AD&D and 2nd Edition grognards like me won't be buying either.

And given that Pathfinder seems to have a firm grip on many of the 3rd Edition and 3.5 fans that leaves very, very few D&D players who will actually be buying this new edition.   



Many loyal pathfinder fans want a more basic game not dependent on magic items.  Pathfinder is only good for high magic monty haul campaigns.
What is missing for the 1e/2e guys Phoenix?   I am always curious for your view point on the game.

I'm assuming you'd drop skills and feats.   But what about 5e makes it totally not viable as an alternative for 1e/2e people?  or you in particular? 



We're actually writing up our response and analysis now, but we still need 3-4 sessions to finish testing out the last two packets. Then you can expect a pretty lengthy blog on my profile. Hoping to get it up sometime in June. Until then the synopsis would be: has lost much of the original feel through abandonment of 'the class is the class', power level inflation, and inclusion of 'newer' features and methods. In essence we see the game as a new 3rd edition, but played like pre-3rd.

I have talked to many 'old schoolers' who are quite happy with the direction its going, so I don't want to claim representation over all of any group. Anything I post is just the couple dozen of us that I play with, but it seems to be frequently echoed across various forums. I'm also not totally dissatisfied. There are a number of good features. It's just the overall feel and direction that are making me feel like it may be a lost cause.





I'll be interested to read that blog, but the synopsis here sounds similar to the feelings of myself and my group of old AD&D and 2nd Edition holdouts.

As long as this Next D&D plays like the 3rd Edition we rejected we won't be buying it either. 
Sign In to post comments