It's my way or the highway!

AKA: why 5th edition is mission impossible.

Since the announcement of 5e I've seen these forums explode into one giant spasm of edition war. And it's not just 3e vs. 4e, the 1e and 2e players have been throwing hat in the ring too. Then you've got the campaign setting wars taking place: 4e FR vs. 3e FR vs. 2e FR,  2e DS vs. 4e DS, Ebberon haters vs. lovers, and Dragonlance/Ravenloft/Spelljammer/Planescape fans howling for resurrection.

In general, these forums have degenerated into a cacophony of demands. I want this, I want that, and if I don't get it I'll never spend a dollar on 5th edition! It's all my way or the highway, and the sense I get is that the expectations for this new edition are so divergant that WotC is going to be in a tight fix to give everything to everyone.

Here's a quote:  "If WotC doesn't retcon the spellplague out of existance then 5th is already dead."

The key thing to note here is that this player is demanding something very specific (a FR plot point) and making it a deal breaker. Over the last two weeks I've read hundreds of statements like this. When WotC proposed one edition for everyone, they immediately set up a lot of expectations that I fear will be impossible to acheive. Did they set themselves up for mission impossible?

In the interests of exploring this a little bit further, I'm going to ask the simple question:

WHAT WOULD 5TH ED. HAVE TO INCLUDE/OMIT THAT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO NOT PLAY THE GAME?

Let's see what people say...
Here's a quote from another poster, taken from a thread about 3.5 spell lists:

"I already know that when D&DNext hits the shelves I will pick up the book flip to fireball and if it does not hit approximately a 30 foot area doing 1d6 damage per caster level I will put the book down walk away and keep playing what I'm playing."

DEAL BREAKER!
I won't play it if the books cost more than $40. Not that I wouldn't want to, just budget issues.
I'd like the next  version to be somewhere between 2e and 3e. There are some things that 4e brings to the table that could be useful where DMing is concerned. I could get my head around some of the ideas used in that system and agree it would make the life of a harried DM a lot easier. 

A real deal breaker for me would be continuing the trend of reducing the game to a set of combat rules and basing every little thing a character can do on what they can do in a fight. 

I used to take the exact same spell desriptions found in the player's hand book and use them to make things, build a world, affect whole communities and to oppress them.

How can an evil wizard turn an entire region in a temperate zone into a frozen wasteland without being able to control weather? sure I can come up with an alternative but then I have to invent some unweildy mechanic that works but feels contrived rather than say the guy has cast this spell and the weather in the area of effect has been changed. and this is just one of a dozen or more things that got messed with that never really needed changing.

I think the game should give us the tools we need to do what we want and not just turn the thing into chess with magic. 
I've recently been playing C&C and picking and choosing content from everything pre-4E, simply because 4E is the ONLY one that doesn't convert easily.

So for me, it would be hard to buy into something that:
     1. Doesn't convert to C&C without complete rewrite.
     and
     2. Doesn't support long term compatability, in at least one direction of time.
        (future promise of LONG TERM compatibility would be great)


I would give 5E an honest look though, not just looking at one spell.
I'd like the next  version to be somewhere between 2e and 3e. There are some things that 4e brings to the table that could be useful where DMing is concerned. I could get my head around some of the ideas used in that system and agree it would make the life of a harried DM a lot easier. 

A real deal breaker for me would be continuing the trend of reducing the game to a set of combat rules and basing every little thing a character can do on what they can do in a fight. 

I used to take the exact same spell desriptions found in the player's hand book and use them to make things, build a world, affect whole communities and to oppress them.

How can an evil wizard turn an entire region in a temperate zone into a frozen wasteland without being able to control weather? sure I can come up with an alternative but then I have to invent some unweildy mechanic that works but feels contrived rather than say the guy has cast this spell and the weather in the area of effect has been changed. and this is just one of a dozen or more things that got messed with that never really needed changing.

I think the game should give us the tools we need to do what we want and not just turn the thing into chess with magic. 


Control Weather exists in 4e too, it's a level 14 ritual. So don't worry, it'll be in 5e too.

If the same / a very similar AEDU Powers system is in full force for all classes the way it was in 4.0E, I will probably not adopt the system.
If the same / a very similar AEDU Powers system is in full force for all classes the way it was in 4.0E, I will probably not adopt the system.



I think that's the point WotC is going for though. The modularity that they're talking about should hopefully make nothing "full force". Even though lots of content will hopefully be optional just like the OP I have seen people demanding their way. I see no point in denying someone else their options just because you don't like them.

Not that that's necessarily what you were going for.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

Not that that's necessarily what you were going for.


If it's an option / one module, then it's not "full force" and don't have to use it / allow it at my tables.

If the same / a very similar AEDU Powers system is in full force for all classes the way it was in 4.0E, I will probably not adopt the system.



I think that's the point WotC is going for though. The modularity that they're talking about should hopefully make nothing "full force". Even though lots of content will hopefully be optional just like the OP I have seen people demanding their way. I see no point in denying someone else their options just because you don't like them.

Not that that's necessarily what you were going for.



I just hope that it isn't that or "I full attack" as the only 2 variables for martial classes. I wouldn't mind seeing a return of something similar to the martial adepts (specifically the Swordsage) as another option. 

Martial classes are my biggest fear in the new edition (if Essentials is any indicator of what they will look like). That is the deal breaker for me. If it doesn't have mechanically dynamic martial classes, I won't bother.
does it do 4th ed better then 4th ed?

i honestly don't care about previous editions. their unbalanced and deceptive mechanics (see: linear fighters are falsely said to be equals of the quadratic wizards) is what drew me to 4th ed's balance and overall transparency.

4th ed is the game that does the fantasy genres i care about the best IME. i'll buy 5th ed if the books does it better then 4th, if not (which is entirely what i expect), then i simply won't buy it.
If my only options are human/dwarf/elf/halfling
If every round I can only engage in melee combat by saying "I swing my sword" or by waiting to backstab
If I am completely dependent on weapons and armor for supernatural offense and defense
If I am completely dependent on the party healer for recovery

If any of these are the case, I will not be purchasing or playing 5e. Heck, I wouldn't play 4e until after PHB2, and only Eberron, Primal Power, and PHB3 got me to stick around.

Hopefully there will be options for me from day one, as well as for people who want to play all those things I don't like.
Martial classes are my biggest fear in the new edition (if Essentials is any indicator of what they will look like). That is the deal breaker for me. If it doesn't have mechanically dynamic martial classes, I won't bother.



This is my own deal breaker. I don't care if the Fighter or Barbarian is bound by 'reality' and has has to be creative with his single attack option, but I need atleast one class or build or whatever that allows me to play a martial character who isn't bound to rules that those blasted casters don't have to follow.

Wuxia, Anime, over-the-top, running on rain drops, jumping over buildings, cutting everything in half with a single strike, balls out crazy warrior. Atleast one class that lets me do that. When the Wizard asks if I can fly I want to be able to say 'No. Jump good.'
If the same / a very similar AEDU Powers system is in full force for all classes the way it was in 4.0E, I will probably not adopt the system.



This is it for me as well. There were things I liked and things I didn't like about 4e. This is the only one that I would consider an outright dealbreaker, not because it is inherently bad or anything like that, it's just not the sort of game I'm interested in. I expect to see these aspects of 4e gone from 5e, however, because I think this is one of the major reasons many did not transition to 4e.
does it do 4th ed better then 4th ed?




I don't think it will. I suspect they'll move largely away from any final product that you could call an improved 4e. I think you're going to see something quite different on the whole, with perhaps options to drop in rules that will look familiar to 4e players if and when desired.
If it doesn't take to heart 4e's lessons of good design. 4e was really solid and elegant in its design, but it also had examples of samey and flat design. Taking a look at what 4e did right and working it to fit the flavour of previous editions is, while not a deal-breaker, at least very important to me. The sort of things I'm referring to are these:


  • The tighter math: for an example, in 4e, even at higher levels, the gap between a character's lowest defence and highest defence won't be as drastic as the difference between a character's low save and high save in 3e. In 4e, you have a more than a 10% chance of not being subject to an effect that your character class isn't built to defend against (either by static defence bonuses or ability score requirements).

  • Many of the fixes made to spells that mean they no longer break the game at their appropriate levels yet they retain their flavour. As an example we have the 4e sleep, which still makes enemies that it targets fall unconscious, but allows a save for enemies to wake up each turn.

  • Ease of monster and encounter design. The game should be built in such a way that I can throw a bunch of level-appropriate enemies at the players and not have to worry about it being an unfair challenge. Due to the lack of balance in 3e, encounter design involved a lot of double-checking, just to make sure that monsters didn't overpower the group's weaker members while at the same time not being a cakewalk to the stronger members.


So, if 5e isn't a mathematically sound and balanced system while at the same time retaining the flavour of previous editions, I will be sorely disappointed. None of these, however, are deal-breakers to me.

The deal breaker for me is about access. If I pay for something, I want a permanent local offline version I can access at any time (in order of preference: printed book/magazine, e-book/zine, download). If it's electronic, I want it to be completely cross platform, and I want it where wizards can't take it off me.

No offline access, no purchase.  Simple as that.
Competition places
Winner of Hero Craftsmen 3: Gladiator Winner of Master Storyteller Competition 1: Ancient Ruins Gold Medallist in MDMC 38: Populate a map I placed first (that's right, FIRST!) in the second CowCon: "We All get Old" Contest! Gold Medallist in MDMC 42: Create a Remote Location Winner of Master Storyteller Competition 7: I am Legend Best in Category: Rules Use - Hero Craftsman 17 Best in Category: Clarity - Hero Craftsman 17 Second place in Master Storyteller Competition 6: Fall from Grace Silver Medallist in MDMC 32: Magic Item Spectacular Joint Silver in Hero Craftsmen 6: The Frostfell Silver medallist in Hero Craftsman 17: We're going Underground! Silver Medalist in Hero Craftsman 18: We need a Hero! Silver Medalist in Hero Craftsman 20: Back to School
Show
http://drewbaker.com/warlord/images/group9/Durga.jpg Now that's a half-orc! Like Joe Wood? Meet Gwen. http://tinyurl.com/ringofnine
If you think commoners can't do anything, you should meet Joe Wood! The pen is mightier than the sword - but only if the sword is very small and the pen is very sharp - Terry Pratchett Methinks (still) wizards bit off more than they can chew. fantasy-28.gif
It does make these forums a little difficult to navigate, all the "I want removed" threads, when one of the design goals of 5e is not removing things outright but offering options and modules. Calling for the removal of an element is missing the point of the edition.

Much of this is just posturing. They'll still buy. 

The question at hand:
WHAT WOULD 5TH ED. HAVE TO INCLUDE/OMIT THAT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO NOT PLAY THE GAME? 

I've blogged about what I'd like to see here and here.  But I think the dealbreaker would be a singler style of play like 4e has. 
4e is great if you want to play a fantasy super hero or action movie character, but gets a little trickier playing something else. If you want to vary the amount of magic or tone of the game away from kickin' ass in dungeons the edition creaks a little.
If for all its modules and optional rules and different styles of building character, if you end up feeling the same and playing the same I'll be dissapointed. If, for example, the only modularity the DM is given is excluding races and classes. 

It should be possible for me to play a low-magic Game of Thrones style game where there are monsters (zombies and dragons) and some subtle magic but  no one is lobbing fireballs or teleporting or weilding swords glowing with divine light.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Jester, you can play low magic. Far more easily than in any previous edition.

Anyway, I agree with Ratpick. I'm not interested in a game that isn't heavily informed by 4e design. I'm not interested in the heavily stereotyped AD&D vintage classes for instance. That's a major reason we stopped playing back in the early 90's. It was tiresome to be stuck with a game that only worked when there was a fighter, a cleric, a rogue, and a wizard regardless of what sort of characters the players really wanted to play, and then condemned 2 of the 4 to becoming less and less significant with each level, one of them to spending every encounter healing, and gave all the best toys to one of them.

As a DM we need to have:

1) Ease of customization and building of monsters.
2) Reliable gauge of encounter difficulty
3) Ability to easily move the challenge difficulty dial up or down

I can't say there's a specific set of mechanics that must be used, but there are things I don't want to see.

1) Most special abilities restricted to one class
2) One class with a mass of selectable options while the other classes have a few fixed options
3) Arbitrary mechanical differences between classes that aren't needed
4) Inability to easily break descriptions of things down from mechanics
5) Arbitrary restrictions and limitations placed on game elements placed simply because some guy in a cubicle somewhere thinks I need to not be able to run a dwarf wizard in my game because it doesn't mesh with his narrow concept of how a setting should work.

Basically it is vastly more likely I'm going to be interested in a game that under the hood is largely built on a close analog of 4e core systems. I'll be much more pleased to see open concepts and lack of arbitrary limitations on things. If all I'm going to be offered is rehashed AD&D because there are people to whom it is a "deal breaker" if the game isn't 100% identical to what they played in 1979, then yeah, I'm not going to waste my hard earned money on that. I have it already. Likewise the closer an analog of AD&D or 3e the game is the less I really need to pay money for it. I can download all sorts of free OSR games that are just slightly tweaked AD&D or slightly tweaked 3.5. The D&D brand is cool and all, but I simply don't need games that already exist and won't buy them just because they have "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover.
That is not dead which may eternal lie

 


the goal of 5e is to unite all the D&D players of all editions.

To do that, the game must begin at it's core as something more basic, traditional, and familiar to most players and DMs than 4.0 and later add modular rules variants that would bring some part of 4.0 back to D&D.

so at the core of the game... its going to be something more akin to 3.0,

and that means..

lower magic level, less feats, less choices for players regarding character generation (race, skills, inate abilities, etc) less spell like powers, a less tactical and more descriptive combat system.

It means defining what it means for a game to be Dungeons and Dragons at it's most minimum. swing the sword, roll the dammage... not look over 40 ability cards, activate three powers, roll for ongoing powers and effects, roll a bunch of ability checks, shift people all over the map, and use interupt abilities at any point along the line, etc etc,

It means gothikaiju will likely not be spending money on 5e and it means if 4e players are hoping for the game to be 4e with even more rules... their probabily going to be disappointed.

if 5e ends up being just a re-vamping of 4e with some nods to older players by bringing back alignment and not tieing magic to expected power levels, it wont be enough for me, it would mean that the Devs have lied to us again to leech the money from our pockets, and I'll skulk back to my lair, start a new skyrim game and never spend another dime on WotC products.

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
The only real dealbreaker for me would be the either the return of "Save or Die" powers, or spells and items which modify ability scores and cascade the changes down a character sheet.  Everything else is a wishlist.
The only real dealbreaker for me would be the either the return of "Save or Die" powers, or spells and items which modify ability scores and cascade the changes down a character sheet.  Everything else is a wishlist.


Indeed.

WHAT WOULD 5TH ED. HAVE TO INCLUDE/OMIT THAT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO NOT PLAY THE GAME?

At this point, the only things that would cause me to definitely not play are:


  • Alignment-restricted classes, like Lawful Good paladins. Sorry, but they don't add anything to the game except a justification for people to play their alignments wrong.\

  • Race- restricted classes.

  • Limited advancement for races and genders. This one never made sense, except to prop up humans more compared to the other races.


That's about it.


 


the goal of 5e is to unite all the D&D players of all editions.

To do that, the game must begin at it's core as something more basic, traditional, and familiar to most players and DMs than 4.0 and later add modular rules variants that would bring some part of 4.0 back to D&D.

so at the core of the game... its going to be something more akin to 3.0,

and that means..

lower magic level, less feats, less choices for players regarding character generation (race, skills, inate abilities, etc) less spell like powers, a less tactical and more descriptive combat system.

It means defining what it means for a game to be Dungeons and Dragons at it's most minimum. swing the sword, roll the dammage... not look over 40 ability cards, activate three powers, roll for ongoing powers and effects, roll a bunch of ability checks, shift people all over the map, and use interupt abilities at any point along the line, etc etc,

It means gothikaiju will likely not be spending money on 5e and it means if 4e players are hoping for the game to be 4e with even more rules... their probabily going to be disappointed.

if 5e ends up being just a re-vamping of 4e with some nods to older players by bringing back alignment and not tieing magic to expected power levels, it wont be enough for me, it would mean that the Devs have lied to us again to leech the money from our pockets, and I'll skulk back to my lair, start a new skyrim game and never spend another dime on WotC products.




To reiterate, I want to have options available to me (very) early on--- which doesn't mean the basic rules need to "force" everyone to play a warforged monk, shifter barbarian or half-ogre warden/battlemind, who can tough it out for a bit without a cleric and do more than "hit enemy with sword". 

Why can't there be a digest-sized book (perhaps as part of a starter box) with the basic rules and separate book(s) released at about the same time with advanced combat and customization options?

the 6th edition of the hero games system is one giant honkin 700 page book of solid page by page rules with one small picture every page, which allowed for all kinds of customization in lethality, powerlevel (from pesant to more powerful than god) and everyting else. It covered how to write up absolutely anything you could imagine using points and a system. nobody liked it... Too intimidating, too many rules too fast.

So they broke it up into multipule books. Which they make more on. There wont be a giant 1000 pg book of 5e with little art. just not going to happen but I wish you were right and they followed the suggestion.       
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
What Ratpick said, for the most part.
Resident Logic Cannon

 


the goal of 5e is to unite all the D&D players of all editions.

To do that, the game must begin at it's core as something more basic, traditional, and familiar to most players and DMs than 4.0 and later add modular rules variants that would bring some part of 4.0 back to D&D.

so at the core of the game... its going to be something more akin to 3.0,

and that means..



I agree with your idea, but I think they'll go further back. I think the first released PHB will basically be 1st edition. 4 classes, 4 races, limited spells, maybe (probably not though) a simple proficiency system (like 2nd). Nothing much else. No skills, tricks or powers.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

I'll at least try it no matter what wierdness they perform.
I will try it no matter what.

The dealbreaker on whether I will continue playing it is the tactical combat of which I have become to tired.

I really do not want the rogue delaying action so the fighter can use Get Over Here to slide the rogue adjacent to the monster, then the fighter shifts to a flanking position and makes her attack, so that way the warlord can use Commander's Strike to give the rogue an attack with combat advantage then shifts away from danger, and then the rogue finally takes there turn that they had delayed to make another attack with combat advantage and still have movement to shift away from danger, which the fighter protects the warlord and rogue from the monster shifting and attacking them with his Combat Challenge and Superiority.

 


the goal of 5e is to unite all the D&D players of all editions.

To do that, the game must begin at it's core as something more basic, traditional, and familiar to most players and DMs than 4.0 and later add modular rules variants that would bring some part of 4.0 back to D&D.

so at the core of the game... its going to be something more akin to 3.0,

and that means..

lower magic level, less feats, less choices for players regarding character generation (race, skills, inate abilities, etc) less spell like powers, a less tactical and more descriptive combat system.

It means defining what it means for a game to be Dungeons and Dragons at it's most minimum. swing the sword, roll the dammage... not look over 40 ability cards, activate three powers, roll for ongoing powers and effects, roll a bunch of ability checks, shift people all over the map, and use interupt abilities at any point along the line, etc etc,

It means gothikaiju will likely not be spending money on 5e and it means if 4e players are hoping for the game to be 4e with even more rules... their probabily going to be disappointed.

if 5e ends up being just a re-vamping of 4e with some nods to older players by bringing back alignment and not tieing magic to expected power levels, it wont be enough for me, it would mean that the Devs have lied to us again to leech the money from our pockets, and I'll skulk back to my lair, start a new skyrim game and never spend another dime on WotC products.



I assume this might have been in response to my post, so I'll reply to it.

You must've misread my post, because I never suggested a revamp of 4e. I wouldn't buy a revamp of 4e, because I already have 4e and it'd be silly of me to buy the same game twice. However, since I see 4e as an improvement in many things, including the way it handles the math and the DM workload, it'd also be extremely silly of WotC to ignore all of that improvement simply because a section of D&D players hates everything related to 4e.

Read my post again: did I say anything about having the 4e power framework? Nope. The way powers and special abilities are handled by the game are a matter to be left to the modular nature of the game's rules. So, those people who want 4e-style powers for their Fighters can have those as an additional rule. Those who prefer Fighters whose only option in combat is to swing their sword can use the basic combat rules.

What I'm not saying is that WotC should ape everything they did with 4e, because I don't agree with every decicion they made with regards to 4e, but at the same time I feel that 4e improved upon 3e in some ways (i.e. overall balance, cleanness of math and ease of encounter design) and it'd be really mindlessly stupid of WotC not to try and replicate that. So, take the basic mechanic and math from 4e, tack on pre-4e subsystems according to DM discretion. It's extremely easy to do, since 4e runs on pretty much the same mechanic as 3e, only with cleaned up math.
My dealbreakers are something like this:



  • Return of Save-or-Die mechanics

  • Some classes getting a ton of flexible options to pick from while others only get a few static options

  • Combat not being mechanically dynamic for all classes; Essentials is a bad step in this direction

  • The return of "spells per day" mechanics or anything else which adheres to "weak now, strong later" design philosophy, or the five-minute work day

  • Monster and encounter design that isn't as easy to customize and use on the fly as 4E's


The game needs to take the good elements of mechanical design from 4E (not meaning AEDU specifically, but the core concept of classes actually operating on the same framework), fix the elements of mechanical design that didn't function as well as intended, shed the abysmal flavor in favor of the rich and nuanced flavor of 3E, and not slide back into the martial ghetto for the sake of "realism".

To be clear, I don't want a straight retread of 4E any more than I want one of 3E or 2E.  I have those games if I wanted to play them.  But I want the new edition not to lose the strides forward that were gained by 4E just to cater to the retro crowd.  If D&D becomes nothing but a retroclone of itself, that will be the biggest dealbreaker for me of all. 
I draw the line as follows: if it isn't fun. I'll try it, regardless of what it has or doesn't have. I'll be disappointed or pleased, optimistic or pessimistic. But I'll try it and see if it's fun. If it's as fun or less fun than I've had with 4th edition. If it's more fun. From there, I'll decide whether or not to keep paying for more content.

All these "I draw the line at x mechanic" ideas are silly. Mechanics in a vacuum are poor lines to draw at.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
For me, it's respect for and inclusion of the traditions of D&D/AD&D--even if there are are options to do away from them.

The nine-point alignment system should be there--even if it is completely replaceble with a different alignment system or can be removed entirely. Heck, I even support having enough modularity for different groups to play differently.

The classic AD&D races and classes. The game can have whatever else, but as long as these are there in the initial PHB, I'm happy. As far as class, I'd prefer having less base classes than what 4e and 3.5 eventually encompassed (outside of the psion)--the traditional classes should be modular enough that players can use them to build some of the other, extra class' roles and archetypes. That is, fighters should be able to be built as knights, swashbuklers, warlords, etc.; rogues should be able to be built as scouts, ninja, etc. and so on.

I'm opposed to "reinventing" and "rebranding" things like taking the name of one thing in previous editions and turning it into something different--the only serves to alienate older players and create different expectations from new players in a way that doesn't serve a positive purpose.

I miss the feel of the older settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance and Planescape (which was merely an outgrowth of 1e's planar setup). I am not against (and totally cool with) supporting other settings and playstyles, but out of the box D&D needs to support the older traditions and older settings. Otherwise, why play D&D instead of some other FRPG?

That said, I'm all for giving options for supporting other playstyles... Just support my playstyle and the overall traditions that made D&D "feel" differently from other FRPGs.


Resident Logic Cannon
WHAT WOULD 5TH ED. HAVE TO INCLUDE/OMIT THAT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO NOT PLAY THE GAME?

The only real dealbreaker for me would be if D&D Next is a 'retro' system.  If I wanna play earlier games, there are options out there.  I don't expect retro at all however, so I'm not too worried.

I've been playing and collecting the game for decades, so there's no real danger of me walking away.  I'm likely to stick around as long as "D&D" is on the cover.  Have to admit it ;).
/\ Art
Most of the content in 4e is a dealbreaker for me.  There's a few things I could tolerate,  but the majority of it is a No-Go for me.


I'm good with anything in any of the other editions,  though I'd prefer 3.x over 2nd or even 1st.  
Most of the content in 4e is a dealbreaker for me.  There's a few things I could tolerate,  but the majority of it is a No-Go for me.


I'm good with anything in any of the other editions,  though I'd prefer 3.x over 2nd or even 1st.  


I think it'd be more productive for the sake of this discussion if you elaborated on those things in 4e that are not dealbreakers to you.
Most of the content in 4e is a dealbreaker for me.  There's a few things I could tolerate,  but the majority of it is a No-Go for me.


I'm good with anything in any of the other editions,  though I'd prefer 3.x over 2nd or even 1st.  


I think it'd be more productive for the sake of this discussion if you elaborated on those things in 4e that are not dealbreakers to you.



Fair enough.

I could likely deal with Minions,  even though I strongly associate them with MMORPG's tendency to rename the same creature every 10 levels or so.  Although,  for me to accept this,  it would need heavily level restricted,  A level 20 Kobold is going to push me over the edge,  that's just Pen and Paper level scaling and I hate level scaling systems.  But a variety of kobolds from say level 1/2 to level 5 I could deal with.

I could likely deal with combat roles,  even though I again associate this with MMORPG design,  The arguement could be made that it's reinterpreted Prestige Classes.

I could easily adapt to a mana based system,  though ideally it would still require the spellboook,  though I would miss the Vancian system some.


Dealbreakers:  Healing surges,  4e's combat,  4e's alignment system,  4e's powers system,  4e's saving throw system,  4e's skillrolls system,  4e's tendency to not ground the world in rules (Read evil gold dragons).  Those are all likely to push it into the dealbreaker area for me.      


I could likely deal with Minions,  even though I strongly associate them with MMORPG's tendency to rename the same creature every 10 levels or so.  Although,  for me to accept this,  it would need heavily level restricted,  A level 20 Kobold is going to push me over the edge,  that's just Pen and Paper level scaling and I hate level scaling systems.  But a variety of kobolds from say level 1/2 to level 5 I could deal with.   


The big difference here is that in computer RPGs you generally have red blob as a standard level 1 monster, and blue blob as a standard level 10 monster.

Whereas the concept of minions means you have:

Terroriser Ogre (an ogre amidst villagers, destroying their stuff) Level 1 Solo

Ogre Vagabond (an ogre working with a partner to rob guarded carriages) Level 4 Elite

Ogre Soldier (an ogre working with multiple others to fight a war) Level 6 standard

Ogre Lackey (an ogre who's one of many taking orders from some much more powerful creature) Level 10 minion

They're not just renaming the same creature and pumping its stats. Its power level is staying constant, the players power level is changing, and therefore how it interacts with them is changing.
I don't know that there's any one facet that would be a dealbreaker for me, but these factors would all be black marks.

-> Minis required (but design natter seems to indicate this will not be the case)
-> Total price of entry > $120 --  High price is a BIG turnoff if other factors aren't great.
-> Required Online 'Support' --  Even if I ultimatley do buy into D&DI in the event I like 5e, I want to be able to buy my books at my FLGS and sit down with them and a few pieces of paper and build a character.
-> Massive Errata -- Okay, I can't really know this before buying in (assuming I'm an early adopter) but related to the above I want the books to be playable as written.  Constant tinkering is unacceptable and they should be proofread well enough to keep corrections to a minimum.
-> Homogenized Classes -- There's more to flavor than flavor text; crunch can have flavor too (It doesn't take many Making Magic or Savor the Flavor articles on the Magic side to learn this).  If D&D fails to recognize this, there's going to be trouble.
-> Core design concepts that break immersion/versimilitude -- See above.
-> D&D 5e: Revenge of the Spellcaster Edition. (or other flagrant imbalance) --  I may love casters and want them to be both different and useful, but if the system's broken it won't be much of an upgrade over 3rd.

IMO 5th could probably survive any one of these problems in my eyes: I'll accept some sameness if it makes total sense, or some abstraction of the game is still fun and interesting to play, as I'm a 3e player right now it should be clear I can handle a little imbalance, and so on.  It could probably live through most pairs.  If three of those 7 points get hit though, I'm probably out and if 4 or more get hit I'll almost certainly give 5th a pass.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920



Fair enough.

I could likely deal with Minions,  even though I strongly associate them with MMORPG's tendency to rename the same creature every 10 levels or so.  Although,  for me to accept this,  it would need heavily level restricted,  A level 20 Kobold is going to push me over the edge,  that's just Pen and Paper level scaling and I hate level scaling systems.  But a variety of kobolds from say level 1/2 to level 5 I could deal with.
 



in 4th you don't have to use minions if you don't want to.
yes they are in published adventures but one of our regular DM's also doesen't like minions and we never encounters one in his homebrew campaigns it is just anothetr option you can use if you want to.


I could likely deal with combat roles,  even though I again associate this with MMORPG design,  The arguement could be made that it's reinterpreted Prestige Classes.
 



combat roles have no in game effect is is just a guide for begining players that makes it easyer to avoid a party mix that might have trubble doing the standard published adventures.


I could easily adapt to a mana based system,  though ideally it would still require the spellboook,  though I would miss the Vancian system some.
 


daily powers/spells are Vancian in nature and in essentials these have already been removed from the martial classes.


Dealbreakers:  Healing surges,  4e's combat,  4e's alignment system,  4e's powers system,  4e's saving throw system,  4e's skillrolls system,  4e's tendency to not ground the world in rules (Read evil gold dragons).  Those are all likely to push it into the dealbreaker area for me.      



4e's powers system, see what is already mentioned about vancian system.

4e's skillrolls system is the same as 3,X only the number of skills has been reduced.

4e's tendency to not ground the world in rules (Read evil gold dragons).
this is the same as older editions  rule 1 was that a DM could change any rule he wanted actualy have the example of good red dragond.
only difrence is that this has been moved from the DMG to the MM.